Realism vs. Idealism

The inverting shift is towards the apparent or away, contrary to it.
language used to clarify and approach objectivity, or to semantically bury, and pretend you’ve escaped the apparent within your own mind.
Like in any art form, an artist either represents the real as accurately as his talent and his perceptions allow, adding his own flare, ro they depict the artist’s reaction to the real, displaying his internal trauma, fear, distaste for what is present.

A mix of both, where the motive of the artist is exposed by how much he wants to represent the real, or his own emotional reactions to it.

Nihilism is a measure of the movement away from the external towards the safety of the internal; away form objectivity towards increasing levels of subjectivity, becoming inter-dependent, and necessitating quantities of like-minded to preserve the shared detachments.
Sort of like the Matrix, without the Abrahamic slant given by the brothers who later had sex-changes - exposing their own mental health.

Following through with the Matrix allegory…

Nihilism is an inter-subjective artificiality, connected via an external medium maintained by a system that has tis own motives for doing so - politics/marketing.
Participants co-exist ni a surreal mental space/time and reject all attempts to be taken out of tis comforting contexts, because the external world’s relationships - its meanings - are indifferent to their needs and uncertain - chaos and order - whereas within the shard as space reason and order dominates absolutely.
Within this inter-subjective space/time there are no natural restrictions - no physical limitations - to codes - language is liberated from the apparent, and with it ideology is detached form reality’s contraints.
Words acquire a magical aura. With them alternative realities can be constructed within this inter-subjective space/time.
Outside of it they are useless- impotent.
We are now in what Baudrillard called “Hyper-reality” - the desert of the real.
Such artificiality can only survive through indoctrinating as many minds into tis contexts as possible - it must proselytize and seduce - expanding its range of influence.

Participants are engaged in a collective solipsistic arrangement - a social agreement.
I will not disrupt your fantasies if you do not disturb mine.
What does not abide by this unspoken agreement is ‘evil’ or a negative factor in this collective project.

Nihilism is entirely linguistic.
Read how it is conventionally defined?
It presumes abstractions and then demands that the real provide them.
If it does not, the real is negative - is nullified - not the ideas that were projected and expected to be present.

Just see how the concept of ‘love’ has been defined out of existence - defined in supernatural, or idealistic ways.
The individual will never encounter such a concept - will never experience its ideal form - so he will be forever disillusioned, seeking the Goose that lays the Golden Egg.
Motivated to work, to continue negating and seeking for what is nowhere in existence. Inevitably disappointed because the real can never match the unreal, the imagined. Reality cannot compare to fantasy.

Much talk about love because it is absent. Songs continuously using it, to feed into a demand that cannot be satiated.

Take another word, ‘beauty’ referring to physical & mental/psychological symmetry & proportionality.
It has been, intentionally, rendered an ideological concept - subjectivized.
Now anything and everything can be called ‘beautiful’. So, the term itself is meaningless.
All are beautiful; all is so, therefore ugliness is non-existent, so the concept has lost its meaning. “Ugly” is only the one who denies this ideological universality - a nazi of the spirit.

It’s now a word of self-comforting - self-pleasuring. “In the eye of the beholder”. Subjective.
It must remain so. Otherwise?
Someone will be hurt, excluded.

But hyperreality evolved out of a mix of a hypo thetical presumption?
Or, as Peacegirl would or may have it, it was the result of a process of crossing a natural boundary , as reductive, where the natural imterphased with it’s own simulation, how can this be?

The simulation or the artwork always superseded or arrived before the the real thing, so by the time the abstract expression mixed with the real medium within which it took on a formal identifiable connection, it was said that art creates reality within it’s own set boundary .
How and why became peripheral considerations.

Life became the canvas upon which muses painted purpose in an objective sense. The imminently identified generated a transcendent reality within the scope of it’s intentionality.

The topical facade bared, the emperor’s clothes bared, the naive imterpretations , covered up, shamefully , were again uncovered, not as.an intentional and formless act within a preformamcd of dissociated. gestures , by a regressive naive approach to added complexity, but through a childlike wonder toward minimalization.
Sure the metaphor thickened and.hardened the obscurity that.left hanging the enigma of spinning.a.credibal ethos out of the good or bad applications of newly formed effects that evolved between logo-semantics and scientific investigations.

Nevertheless, fillers were always introduced ex machina, breaking the pattern of a reified fallacy attributed to nature.
Natural processes intervene in that tenuous connection, man is learning slowly to begin again to do what he should do, instead of doing it unintentionally, he is reconstruxtin9 and revisimg the methods by which he first learned to doubt his power to will a new world out of the ashes that will demolish all if he does not.

And it is unrecognized forms of.love.that conjoin with the lust.for a guiltless life that has to recognized.

Artificiality versus natural environments.
How can we define the concept ‘artificial’ by remaining true to empiricism and the limitations we’ve imposed upon ourselves concerning reason?
A definition that will be clear and highlight the process of detachment from reality.

Artificial = The point in space/time when the interventions of an organism upon its natural environment begin to affect it more than the environment it intervened upon.
A gradual detachment from nature.
All life intervenes upon tis environment, with every action and every choice - free-will - it makes. But it does not produce artificial environments.
Only man, as far as we know, can intervene upon its environment to a degree that it begins to suffer the consequences of its own interventions more than the environment it intervened upon.

This produces positive, to it, consequences but also, often ignored, negative ones. We call the negative repercussions ‘pollution’, and this would include both the material pollution we all cannot deny but also genetic and linguistic pollutants, which we often and routinely remain ignorant of.
The effect is one of snowballing.
The intervention must be intervened upon to deal with the negative consequences…until the resources no longer suffice, leading to an implosion.
As such, all Empires collapse under the weight of their own interventions and their byproducts.

Language mirrors mental processes - psychology.
Language reflects this gradual deterioration towards artificiality.
Art, no longer representing reality, but art creating an artificial reality - an echo chamber - art referring to other art - philosophy could not have evaded this fate.
ideologies referring to other ideologies. Text referring to other text’ Perspectives commenting on another’s perspectives.
Inter-Subjective solipsism.

Language evolving to accommodate this Hyper-Reality.
Detached from the real, it seeks foundations in the surreal, in sensation, emotion, hedonism validating its contexts.
Scripture referring to other Script.
A compounding matrix of inter-subjective nonsense.

if there were any noteworthy difference between ‘artificial’ and ‘natural’, it would be defined like this: an artificial thing is a natural thing produced by a natural thing (animal) that causes the act of creation of a natural thing, something that nature wouldn’t have caused without it (the animal) being an intermediary agent in that act of creation.

glass is natural. a pepsi bottle is natural. a pepsi factory worker is natural. the factory workers production of the bottle is natural. but we call it ‘artificial’ because the bottle didn’t grow out of the ground by itself. starving to death is natural. social security is natural. people who pass it into law and people who use it are natural. but we call it artificial because the program didn’t materialize out of thin air. natural people had to make it, but that doesn’t make it unnatural. artifical does not mean ‘unnatural’.

this distinction is almost as uninteresting as it is simple and not much more can be said about it.

but what you do is point at an environment in which things and processes are present that you don’t approve of, and call those aspects of it ‘artificial’, as if they are violently against nature.

omg women’s liberation is unnatural.
omg socialism is unnatural.
omg the iphone is unnatural.
omg flock of seagulls is unnatural ('cause they run so far away? i dunno)
omg interracial breeding is unnatural.
omg those breasts are unnatural.

and all this is terrible, terrible, terrible because history is on a trajectory of desperate degeneracy. no. you gotta remember, the bulk of society will always be, must always be, mediocre, so that exceptions like me have room to play and make fArt out of the world and the people in it. and to think you’d like to deprive me of that right. unbelievable.

The understanding of natural versus artificial, helps to differentiate what emerges spontaneously from interactivity and natural selection and what emerges through human interventions, governed by human ideologies.

It clarifies, as language ought to do.
It distinguishes and differentiates.

For example, defining artificial, in the way I just did, the difference between gene/meme is accentuated, and such concepts as morality can follow to differentiate what moral behaviour is, how it emerges naturally, and at what point man intervened with a new set of ethics - addendums to natural behaviour that made cooperative reproduction and survival possible.
We can now distinguish morality from ethics, giving a different term to man-made behaviours born out of social necessities form those born form natural necessities, born from natural selection processes.

As always nihilists want o reduce everything to meaninglessness. and uselessness. they want to conceal rather than reveal.
If not absolute certainty, then absolute uncertainty. Applied selectively, always.
No skepticism in some areas, and extreme absolutist standards in others. Inconsistent consistency. The mark of a hypocrite.

Watch the straw-manning above. I never used “unnatural”…yet this imbecile puts it in my mouth, like the other one, his intellectual equal, iamgbiguous did.
Artificial does not mean ‘unnatural’. I defined it in a very precise way. But this hypocrite wants to ridicule….because cynicism has worked so well ni his life, he wants to continue.

The Nil is powerful. All must be absorbed into it, before they surrender to it. An act of vengeance before the absolute end.
Negate, ridicule, nullify, repeat.
It’s always another’s fault.
If not gawd, not the judges, not da paulice…then the Universe.
Power of the nil.

Well, not ALL, but only the part that can be recognized, or, perceived.

Yes…so only what has a pattern, is ordered and within a humans perceptual-event-horizon.

My own metaphysics includes non-patterned energies - chaos.
But that’s another topic.

Man perceive order and rearranges to his liking. But this has collateral effects not always positive…mostly negative.
Man can construct fantasy alternative realities, suing words - semiotics - that are beautiful, self-consistent, full of positivity…and yet completely and utterly non-existent.
Useless outside human brains.

To be clear…as was proven by the response of the self-described nihilist, this psychosis cannot think outside tis binary either/or.
So, it can only understand something as either natural or unnatural, not as naturally emerging - trial and error, naturally selected - and intentional, willful, guided by a ideal, such as artificiality.

They must reduce the opposition to an absurdity and then dismiss it laughingly. This is typical of this psychology.
This particular specimen spent years accusing courts and judges and the police, while at the same time dismissing free-will and believing in hard-determinism.
His denial of free-will only applied to himself - so as to remain eternally innocent.
When his self-deception was pointed out to him - by moi - he begrudgingly extended his field of innocence to also include everyone…including all those judges and police officers who had no option but to arrest his arse and put it in jail for reasons only few truly know.
I know more of it than what he’s admitted.
He is a living example of the theory I propose.
So when imbeciles like him and iambiguous say they want to ‘bring it down to earth’ ro demand ‘real life contexts’ they cannot see that they are the evidence they refuse to see.
The other clown is another glaring example of what nihilism is and how it manifests in individuals. an extreme, psychotic case that only serves to make it all the more clear.

In his case he doesn’t truly want to ‘bring it down to earth’; but to keep it on the ‘skyhooks’ of human philosophical contrivances.
What he means by ‘bringing it down to earth’ is to reduce it to emotion, where he hopes he has a chance because his entire intellectual life is was and forever will be, until Godot arrives, emotionally founded.
So, when he says he wants to bring abortion, let’s say, down from the clouds, he means do stop reasoning, in generalities, and to make it personal, emotional.
Otherwise there is no evidence no definition that will ever suffice. He’s learned the routine and repeats the poem every time he reaches his intellectual limits.
Bringing it down, also mean…make it simpler, dumb-it-down so that even a retard, like him, will understand.

These two clowns can only think in dualities, if they are not regurgitating some iconic thinker pretending to be powerful through association.
Both understand artificial as unnatural - meaning outside space/time, or reality.
In this way rape, paedophilia can be labeled natural because it emerges in nature… as does their own psychosomatic afflictions and degeneracy - what exists is good no matter how it managed to come into existence and how it remains in existence.
By that emotional reasoning, a degenerate that rapes a five-year old is natural; a sicko that eats faces, is natural. Whatever decadent sick act is justified as part of natural order - inevitable.
God’s will.

But perhaps better said

1 Outside a human brain = uselful
2 Outside human brains. = useless
3 Inside a human brain. = useless
4 Inside human brains. = useful

The functional qualifier determines it’s degree of potential use/actual use

Or, how close can a hypothetical narrative come to it’s actual realization.
This is why the recognition of the gap between inside/outside is related to it’s function and it’s use.

That is why the inside and the outside are relative to the substantial content of the per qualification

If the gap between the semiotic reality and the perceived reality determines the qualifying factors in quantifiable relative sets, then that mode may diminish or exclude the fantastic (hyperreal) from the insignificant and the unremarkable.

In logical terms, a set of unremarkable signifiers the remarkable is excluded from the remarkable set.

All remarkable sets then, are for the most part are self inclusive. but does the contrary valid?

.Are all self inclusive sets unremarkable? I would hazard a yes, but then the argument validates an impossibility, that is, consistent with Leibnitz’s idea.

Agean said,

"]To be clear…as was proven by the response of the self-described nihilist, this psychosis cannot think outside tis binary either/or.
So, it can only understand something as either natural or unnatural, not as naturally emerging - trial and error, naturally selected - and intentional, willful, guided by a ideal, such as artificiality.

They must reduce the opposition to an absurdity and then dismiss it laughingly. This is typical of this psychology."

The dynamic is a synthetic between projective and introjective identification, and it is weighed downward toward the indicated contradiction.

That much is obvious. The synthesis fails to integrate, and produces a phenomenal lack of internalization. That lack is the nil, of internalization, but how is differentiabiliry understood in terms of the intentionality discussed above, or lack of?

For if it is lacking, as a conditional to objective loss or absence, then it is a exclusively ‘out’ of the question of belonging in the inside domain of realization in the first place.

How can a never existent phenomenology be reduced without a constructed criteria of an objectively constructed reality in the first place?

You can not reduce some thing that has never been induced? Right?

And I am talking in the contexts of one of the #1-4 bracketed logical sets primarily, as the raise a particular semiology , or, narrative.

Exoteric/Esoteric = outside/inside.
Outside the will’s ability to manipulate without the body; inside = within the will’s reach, not requiring the body to act - interact - except via language.
Occultism refers to the esoteric. Whenever it is used it indicates an absence of evidence or reasoning, other than emotional and ideological appeals - political.
It always promises great rewards if one suspends reason and skepticism and surrenders to the emotions and sensations. Oftentimes it uses chemical means, or music, to reach this state of impressionability.

The inter-subjective is useful if it is hypocritical. It’s greatest utility is that it self-comforts and seeks a community to validate its methodology. In the mind it is God.
It remains occult and uses obscurantism because it must contradict itself if it is to remain alive.
World being indifferent to human contrivances.
Obscurantism masks this hypocrisy in linguistic prose, rhetoric, mysticism - something is being said, by saying nothing at all - allusion, triggering in the other imagery, sensations, emotions to compensate for the absence of evidence and argument.
Words can mean anything, at any time, in any situation, so they are rendered meaningless enough to be flexible to circumstantial needs.

See how Christianity cannot apply itself, but only selectively - then it must cleanse itself of its own inability to produce its ideal man - see Marxism as another example, always accusing others for tis own inability to produce this Utopian Marxist world, populated by the ideal communists.
See how Buddhist monks - eastern nihilism - must depend on the offerings of worshipers to self-maintain as they pretend to deny their own physical needs and extricate themselves from reality.
Nihilism is always hypocritical. The degree of nihilism determining the level of hypocrisy required to maintain the dissonance between mind/body, or the ideal and the real - noumenon/phenomenon.
This is why it is so seductive and why it remains useful in politics and marketing…and in sexual behaviour where pretence is essential.

Like I said…a good lie is one that does not invent reality but selectively exaggerates it; the best liars are the ones who believe in their own lies. ergo, nihilists are oblivious of their own self-deceptions, and this is part of the appeal.
Also why they become so agressive when they are exposed.

yes well i discovered years ago that you were unable to understand how all that ‘works’ - ethically and metaphysically - and even made a little effort explaining it to you a few times. and this was not before realizing that you need to despise me (for other reasons wink) by any means necessary, so i understood that even if i did make a breakthrough in that head of yours, you’d not admit it anyway. and with that, i abandoned the project once and for all.

and i even remember the days when i’d become angry at this nonsense. that was a period in which it wasn’t yet known to me what a train-wreck you truly are (discovering this took time), so it mattered to me that you not misunderstand me. we want to be understood by those who impress us, and care nothing about being understood by those who do not. moreover, it also stopped mattering that the audience believed you… once i discovered i felt no desire to defend myself in and for such company.

in a word, my forum career can be characterized as; ‘sorry, i musta dialed the wrong number. click’

Never question yourself, dude. Never change. You are doing great. Keep it up.

Right. Like one can’t turn it all around and note the same thing of him.

But let’s explore this. In regard to “realism vs. idealism”, had he ever questioned himself over the years? For example, did he believe one thing about it years ago and then had new experiences or came into contact with new information and knowledge and then changed his mind?

This is important because if he had ever changed his mind about it before, he is admitting that he was once wrong. And, if he admits that he was once wrong, he is acknowledging that, given yet newer experiences and access to newer ideas, he may well be convinced that he is wrong now. And change his mind again.

But the objectivists don’t think this way. Some will admit that they were once wrong, but only because they had not yet pinned down all the experiences and ideas necessary to be absolutely certain of the whole truth. But now of course they have.

What I do then is to suggest that we take intellectual contraptions like this – both mine and his – out into the world and explore realism and idealism with respect to human interactions in actual contexts.

Though here [with objectivists of his ilk] the rest is history.

Nobody “despises” you Brian. You’re just another poor fuck that came up with a method to preserve his ego and pretend he knows and understands more than what he actually does.

I just can’t tolerate hypocrites. Especially those who put words in my mouth.
You are a grade A hypocrite. A someone common sense kind of hypocrite.

It’ll soon be over and you can socialize with your friends, using that bullshit that works so well for ya.

See?
Either/Or binary simplicity from simpletons.

If you ain’t omniscient - having never made an error - then you must be part of the uniformity of the herd that is wrong.
Simplistic dualities.
Either absolute knowledge, omniscience, or absolute uniformity, ignorance. 1/0
If not one, then nil.
If not absolute order, then absolute chaos.
If not absolutely positive, then absolutely negative.
If you critique negatively then you must consider yourself perfect; if you like you must always see the positive, and only the positive, in what you like, or love.

This is classic nihilistic bipolar psychosis.
This imbecilic doesn’t even know he’s my evidence; that my theory has him as my ‘down to earth’ example in reality.
He’s been my pack mule for years. Used to carry my words into ILP, for months. selective…only carrying those he thought he could benefit from, but he is so simplistic he didn’t even realize he was achieving the opposite effect.

lol as if i’ve been wrong all this time, secretly believe you are right, and am afraid of accepting it. but alas, i fear this too is all in your head.

but how do you know i’m not doing great, and by what standard do you determine this? that i have no regrets, am in great health, satisfied with my work and my income (all things considered), and don’t believe i wasted my money yesterday going to watch the new ‘starwars’ movie because once they got to exegol and hit that fleet, the shit got real. isn’t this enough? btw that movie… in fact the whole series… could be made into an excellent metaphor of the war between socialism and capitalism. the sith (evil capitalist autocrats led by palpatine - adam smith) vs the jedi (noble revolutionary guerrillas led by yoda - karl marx). no but siriusly, who gets to decide if i’m doing great? i’d like to decide that myself, with your permission of course.

on the matter or ‘questioning oneself.’ that is a delicate thing to talk about in the wrong company and without discretion. not everyone’s ‘questioning’ is equal, less so are the stakes involved in making decisions similar to questions that have much more gravity than others. there are little arbitrary questions we are faced with… and then there are yuge questions we are faced with that can’t be asked or answered lightly. the question about the question should be; how much of a difference would it make in your life to answer x instead of y. fortunately for most, not much, so there isn’t much at stake. little questions with little answers.

so those who have only ever had to ask and answer little questions don’t get to scrutinize those who are faced with bigger ones. for some, ‘questioning thyself’ is a much greater task than it is for others and involves a different kind of matrix… and when someone doesn’t understand or hasn’t experienced the enormous complexity and pressure involved in answering such yuge questions, they tend to assume such answering would be as simple as their own.

your assignment for today is to go out and get yourself into a fix not of your own making, and then battle with yourself over what you should do. i don’t mean watching videos about the impending immigration of mongrels into europe, either, since you’re gonna do the same thing no matter what happens when its over (go to the kitchen to make a sandwich). no, i mean some real shit, where your ass is directly on the line.

then come back and we can talk about ‘questioning thyself’.