Words

Semiotics - i.e., words - is all Nihilists have. It is a mental disease - an insecurity, an vulnerability desperate to protect itself....finding a tool in mental abstractions, represented by semiotics.

Words, symbols, are all Nihilists and desperate degenerates have.
They like to believe words are magical....because they need to use them as a defence agaisnt world.

See how they deny race.
they, like all of us, can see race - can perceive racial differences - can witness difference in academic and athletic performances, but they must protect themselves from the implications - upon themselves.
So, they use words to dismiss what they perceive - noumena usurping, they believe, phenomena.
Race is a social construct....meaning it is socially engineered - eugenics. But they don't want to call it that because that would expose their motives.
Eugenics is fascistic, what Nazis dream of....not them. They call it social constructs, i.e., social engineering.
Everything has to be made into a social construct....because then, and only then, can their desirable social engineering hope to 'correct' what natural selection has wrought.
But they will not admit it. No, they'll soften it up by renaming it 'nurturing'......takes the harshness away....sounds more motherly, loving.
It's about choosing the right words, and placing them in the correct sequence.

The contraceptive pill and abortion, are examples of social engineering.
How else can man intervene upon a natural limit to female promiscuity, than by reducing the risks and costs?

A desperate degenerate - i.e., nihilist - is capable to trying to sell you on the idea that he invented the wheel - because he's shameless and he is a believer of the power of semiotics - the magical poser of words/symbols.
He will rename it Roda - ΡΟΔΑ - or the 'ROTAM - to legitimize it....make it sound more exotic....and then add to the definitino all kinds of occult bullshit - spiritual mumbo jumbo.
Know what 'spiritual' means for him?
Of the mind...though he will not admit it.....anything that is entirely a mental fabrication he justifies by naming it spiritual......occult, magical.
I've said this before....Christianity will be reinvented and then resold to the same imbeciles it seduced in the past. It's inevitable.

I mean it almost happened when it was secularized as in Communist Ideology.
Communism changing some of the names.....'God' became 'Humanity' - sanctified by being 'cleansed from its natural foundations', converted to an ideology - completely abstract, void of sexual and racial connotation's.
'Sinner' became 'bourgeoisie'....'Satan' became the 'Capitalist,' or simply 'Capital' - the seductive trickster that made men do all sorts of evil.
The 'Church' became the 'state' - no longer requiring a division - one absorbed the other.
The 'Priesthood' became the political bureau - 'saints' became 'heroes of the revolution'.....'revolution' replaced the idea of 'salvation'; piety became production, doing the lord's work.
The Messiah became the ideology itself - saving the proletariat from the world's injustices; from reality's pain and suffering.
In Capitalism it became money, i.e., another idea promising salvation from the past....sum of all previous nurturing - nature.

It's all about linguistics.
One can keep the exact same structure, the exact same concepts, by simply re-baptising them, and covering them up with new and improved oculist semiotics.

Occult simply means....subjective - referring to feelings, emotions, private hopes and fears finding relief in obscurantism; it means...esoteric, i.e.,that which cannot be proven or shown....has no pragmatic effect....but can only be believed in, felt, passionately adhered to...a private conviction.
Pathos is the magical energy fuelling all this crap. Like the pathos of eros, it has the power to overcome reasoning, scepticism, logic, pragmatism and reality...in theory.
It has an impact on the physical, the body it emerges within...and through semiotics this impact can be transferred to other minds....if and only if they've been properly primed, i.e., they speak the same language and have been trained to react to symbols/words in particular ways.

The 'magical power' of semiotics cannot be transferred to the illiterate or to life that has no capacity to comprehend...or to lifeless matter.
If words are spoken in Cantonese to one who does not speak it.....the effect will be nil.
The transfer of this type of bullshyte 'power' can only occur between minds that share a memetic foundation, and a similar psychological feebleness, i.e., a similar need/desire.....the same hope and fears/anxieties.
It is impotent in every other context.
For this reason these degenerate desperately try to discover the universal language.....god's mind, full of mystical semiotics.
How far away is this approach from the biblical?
'First there was the word.....'
Word of God....the occult mathematical and/or linguistic algorithms of omnipotence and omniscience.....absoluteness.

It's the same crap in a different form.

Semiotics is the foundation of Nihilism.....the basis of Modernity; ideology, purified, by referring to nothing in reality, nor in the past - an entirely new, purified, idea, that has not been 'corrupted' by nature - nature's indifferent, injustices.
It is a disease of mind, that then infects and intestates the physical.

It cannot connect to anything in reality - it cannot define itself, clarify its presence. It must remain obscure, insinuating...able to seduce men-children and females with its liberated, from the limitations of the corporeal tangible world, creativity, i.e., fatalities.

All they do now, these desperate degenerates, is play with words.
Words to discredit language altogether, so as to escape what they reveal; words to reinvent the tried and tested, and now outdated, with a new and improved update; words to hide and to selectively reveal; words to accuse while practising the exact same deeds.

They wont call it eugenics or social engineering....but nurturing, or social constructivism, or even Democracy.
They wont call it Christianity, but Venus Project, Communism, replacing 'love' with some other 'positive' trigger, a new word/symbol....and then claim to have invented something brilliantly new; they will not call it intervention, or pollution, but compassion, justice, equality, fairness.....something pure and innocent sounding.

Like I've said before....the Abrahamic one-God was not murdered, he did not 'die'....an idea cannot die. Nietzsche was wrong.
This is the meaning of eternal life.....through the idea of god; this is the meaning of immortality, or of the symbolic resurrection of the messiah Jesus.
An idea/ideal can be reinvented; reborn, reincarnated,....over and over again - given a new name, covered in new symbols....implying the exact same bullshyte.
It's the placebo effect.
The same exact concept is still believed in by millions of imbeciles who call themselves atheists, or enlightened, or advanced.
They've only overcome the infantile imagery - the anthropomorphisms. They are no longer required, because the masses are now literate.....they can be exploited and manipulated linguistically, referring to empty, meaningless, abstractions.
The Nihilism of Abrahamism is alive and well.....trasmutated into another abstraction, e.g., money, absolute, oneness, order, whole....choose any word. It does not matter...it amounts to the same thing.  
What's in a name?

If you describe a dog, as the phenomenon with specific traits, and behavioural potentials....what does it matter if you then rename it a 'cat', or if you choose to call it friend?
Will renaming a lion save you from it? Will it gain a power over it?

Will renaming eugenics and social engineering into nurturing or social constructs, change what is being proposed?
How about substituting 'god' with 'humanity' but retaining the same vague, nonsensical, allusions of divinity? will that change anything?
What about instead of mystifying 'love' you mystify another word, referring to a tangible observable behaviour - an activity - like 'hate'....or 'male/female'....or any word.....will it change anything, other than how your faith and hope has been rejuvenated by deceiving yourself?

Many a evangelical firebrand priest have performed public 'miracles' on cancer patients, with impressive gestures and dances and whatnot...for a while making them feel better. Did they same them from the cancer?

All words are now being corrupted.....even those that were once considered obvious and solid....like the words 'male' and 'female'.
Imagine what they've done, or can do, to more obscure words.
It's all part of propaganda and brainwashing. Control language and you gain control over the masses of imbeciles who place they're faith in symbols/words, and not deeds and actions.
Equality, for example, is a nonsensical meaningless word - an ideology -existing nowhere but in human minds, and yet it has the power to rally masses of brain-dead degenerates to its ambiguous, but promising, call.

What does 'bringing it down to earth' even mean if not connecting words to observable tangible, corporeal, activities, i.e., behaviours - that which can be observed, tested and validated....and not simply stated and believed in....with an unyielding passion?

Words like 'morality', 'love', 'hate' - all emotions - 'value', 'human', 'spirit', 'soul', 'will', 'one/nil', can and must be 'brought down to earth', i.e., reattached and/or returned to their original references in the observable, world.
If the masses of degenerates refuse to do so, then let the few, gifted - those who are born philosophers and not in name only - do so.
It takes a constitution of spirit few possess, because the implications are harsh to endure for a mortal being.
The easier path is to follow the masses, into obscurantism and occult escapism, disconnecting symbols/words from reality, in the hope of finding relief from what cannot be escaped, but only ignored and hidden from - internally, is where these desperate degenerates seek refuge.....'inside their own minds, where they are 'lord and master' and words can be given any meaning they desire.

Hawkes, David wrote:

Let us recall here that exchange-value is an imposition of representation on reality. It takes humanly devised significances and grafts them onto the inherent use-values of natural objects. It imposes an artificial, quantitative equivalence on objects that are qualitatively, naturally, essentially, different. The rule of exchange-value is the death of essentialism and teleology: its triumph is the victory of signs over nature.
Music is an apt medium through which to explore such shifts in the status of representation, for it is a non-referential or autonomous form of expression. Musical notes do not point toward external referents, they contain all their meaning within themselves. Music therefore has a plausible claim to be the purest form of art, and it has historically been a theological discipline, since musical harmony was believed to reflect and express the divine harmony of the universe.
…Leverkuhn’s method is unable to avoid the recurring tritone— which, because it disrupts harmonic progression, was traditionally called the ‘devil’s interval’—and as a result his music is disturbing and unpleasant to listen to. Schoenberg himself referred to this process as ‘the emancipation of the dissonance,’ and called it a ‘method of composing with twelve tones which are related only one with another.’
Schoenberg’s music is internally non-referential: its individual tones do not relate to any one keynote. In his work, unlike in harmonic music, the tones are not significant essentially, or ‘in themselves’: their significance is relational—it emerges from their relation to the other tones of the sequence.

This is why music what been equated with the divine.

Of course Hawks is wrong about music being non-referential.
Music is the most abstract representation of cosmic interactivity, i.e., of patterns and non-patterns - order/chaos - energies.
Music is the human ordering, reflecting cosmic patterned energies - those with a persistent, repeating, predictable rhythms.
Schopenhauer equates existences with a symphony, limiting himself to order, which is a human thing to do.
Chaos, if it were raised to the level of conscious perception, would be interpreted as annoying noise - background radiation.

Music is the most abstract form of language - reflecting mathematical sequences in the context of sound. A technology....an externalization of man's knowledge and understanding - his appreciation - of his own and of the world's patterns, given form via the medium of atmosphere.
Data is transmitted as sensation....lacking all cognitive form. In this it exceeds mathematics.

The dissonance between the mind/body, or the abstraction and the real, often displays itself as irony, paradox, conundrums.
When the interpreted contradicts the interpretation, the first thing a moron does is accuse the interpreted of a motive, or of failing to live up to his understanding, i.e., his comprehension, interpretation.

In Nihilistic contexts this becomes an accusation agaisnt reality itself, which must be anthropomorphosize, or given a motive, to blame....otherwise the accuser exposes himself as a degenerate.
Therefore. all must be converted into a social construct....implying a secret will, a hidden motive.
So when god, as the will to blame for nature's cruelty is lost, the modern degenerate invents the inter-subjective, to find a new secret motive to blame - implying its own innocence and victimization.  
The degenerate, in short, needs, desperately needs, someone to accuse, something to blame for his own failures.
We see this clearly not only in Abrahamism but in those recovering Abrahamics who profess to be atheists, but still believe in absolute will, an absolute order, preserving something to blame - they replace god with order, but retain the traits associated with the original. Then they replace god's will with an inevitable fate nobody can ever do anything about....so self is blameless, innocent, a victim of something external - an otherness, even if it is void of consciousness or a motive. Motive is replaced with telos, though many of these hypocrites deny a belief in telos.
They simply imply it with their dogma in absoluteness.
Absolute order implies an inevitable process with no end but with a consequence the individual has no participation in - so all consequences are a kind of inevitable telos, i.e., ultimate aim, objective.  
What else would absolute order imply if not an inevitable aim for the individual - an unavoidable end, for him or her; an inescapable objective he or she can never escape?
Absolute order, like god, implies an eternal, repeating, process of the same - with the same consequences, the same causes, the same sequences, experienced by an ignorant mind as unexpected or mysterious and mystical.
Even the mind's ignorance is part of the sequence.
The faithful bow before God, as the modern degenerate stoically bows before absolute order - bitching and crying.....but comforted by the fact that it could not have been any other way.
A slave's last bastion of pleasure. There's nothing to do and nowhere to go when freedom itself is an illusion - so why not settle down and endure the master's whip, learning to enjoy its consistent rhythmic strikes; numbing yourself to bear it?  
How can a slave hope to escape, to break free, when he's convinced himself that there is nothing beyond his enslavement? He can better endure the physical pain and suffering because he's evaded the psychological ones - one can numb one's self, so that he feels nothing; but how does one forget, if not through denial?   

Once more the degenerate wants to be the victim of happen-stance, of another....if an irony emerges it is not due to his failure to apprehend and comprehend, but it is the other who fails to live up to their judgements.
The usual by-product of dissonance - paradoxes - is a mind's inability to escape its own representations - like an artis who cannot help but believe that his painting of a tree is an actual tree, and when its representation fails to represent it accurately, or when the tree contradicts the representation, he does not blame himself, and his poor talent, but accuses the tree of some evil motive.  

All art, including linguistic art - i.e., philosophy - suffers from the talentless and degenerate falling into their own constructs - sometimes wilfully, due to trauma seeking relief in itself, other times due to an inherited impoverished spirit, unable to grasp the difference between a representation and a representation of a representation - i.e., a symbol/word - and the actual, the real - the apparent.
They are not victims of something or someone external, but of themselves - victims, if we can call them that, of their own inherited cowardice and idiocy.
It would be easier to have an otherness to accuse and to escape, internally....but how does one escape one's self?
This is what keeps philosophy humble. Arrogance, before the cosmos, being a product of idiocy and a deep seated need/desire that cannot help but seek relief in its own delusions.

Absent absolute means nobody at any time will ever be omniscient, nor omnipotent.
All one can hope for is to be more, and not less.

Suggested reading. having to do with the subject of this thread.

The Poet and His Art, an essay written by H.L, Mencken.

Failure to properly define words leads to a failure to properly conduct philosophical exploration - one is left chasing his own tail, going in circles around himself, or chasing ghosts, forever seeking what is nowhere to be found - much to his/her convenience.

Two possible reasons for this;
1- an inherited, innate - genetic - limitation, unable to be more than it was determined to be, in the immutable past.
2- a secret motive - anxiety, fear, hope etc. - or a secret desire - accolades power over lesser spirits etc. - denying itself any contact with what will shatter its method of deceiving others and self.
When the ideologue intuitively or rationally, believes that the real will destroy or contradict its ideology, he will go to great ends to evade it.

The first usually becomes the servant of the second.

It all depends on intent.
If you just want to have a dialogue, expressing your creative imagination, then you need not be too stringent with words and their definition. the intent is to be entrained, or to stretch your artistic imagination.
If you intent is to fabricate the most seductive possibility possible, attractive to as many minds as possible, then refusing to define your words may serve you best. It would allow enough leeway for the potential target to project into the insinuating obscure concepts, you use as bait, their own privater psychology.

But if your intent is an honest exploration of world then one must begin with a precise and clear definition of the words to be sued in the dialogue, otherwise the participants will be talking in circles or past each other...and noyl frustration will be the outcome.

When I say a clear and precise definition, I do not mean a personal preference or some arbitrary definition, but one based on a common reference point, i.e., the world.
Each definition merit would be the product of how accurately it describes the observed - competing definitions would face the usual evolutionary standard of 'survival of the fittest.
The shared perception would be the objective standard agaisnt which all theories and the definitions of words would be measured.

Words, referring to concepts that cannot be anchored in this way, will be relegated a inferior position of 'questionable' or 'theoretical'.
In this way, philosophy begins from science; metaphysics proceeds from physics, and ideology only enters the mental geography in relation to the two, i.e., physics....metaphysics....ideology.
In this scheme religion, as it is defined and practices by abrhamics would be a third tier dialogue, since it would lack both physical and would only posses questionable, rootless, metaphysical claims; an ideology with only a metaphysics unable to connect to the physical plain - a theory in limbo - a dogma.
Such 'ideologies' even when called philosophy or religion, or spirituality, can only attract air-heads, or those souls with their heads in the clouds - romantic.
Trying to come to any rational agreement with these types is like trying to wake a somnambulist.....even if possible, the trauma would risk his death, and your incarceration.
It's advisable to keep quiet and just enjoy, if you care to, the rambling of their talking in their sleep - dream dialogues.

If this is impossible then no discussion is possible. Best you do not even attempt it. It's a waste of time.

Every word/symbol convoluted by Moderns is a symbol/word referring to a concept that is central to their psychosis.
Obscurantism, vagueness, complexity is how they cloud over what threatens their ideals, and their fragility.
Philosophy, for them, is political, because they cannot practice it in any other way - it must be through other humans that they engage reality.
Each symbol//word connects to minds, mindsets, i.e., psychology, triggering emotions, sensations, pleasures centres in the brain.

For them all is subjective - because it ought to be.
The idea of a objective, indifferent, unconscious, standard is terrifying to them. they cannot think or do anything unless there is some version of a one-God present to settle their anxieties/fears down.
one way or another the Magian one-god is maintained in one form or another, suing one word or another - the concept remains the same.
Not absolute one-god, but absolute one order. Engaging the world honestly and directly is intolerable for them - they need some kind of proxy - some mediating mass, some idea.
Absent absolute scare them to the core - it places their judgement in a continuous and relentless battlefield - a testing plain.
They've lost all confidence in their senses, their own judgements, so they need something to mitigate between their falling away and the hard truth - a safety-net; they've failed so many times, that they no longer want to take responsibility for themselves; they cannot accurately determine the causes of their repeated failures, so they must find excuses in an outer realm - another.
All they have now are words to help them cope with a reality they find intolerable, unjust, cruel and insulting.

Past/Present/Future are not words referring to arbitrary concepts. They refer to a sequence of causality, that cannot be inverted - the past is immutable. What has been done cannot be undone - to turn back time would necessitate infinite energies, to invert the entire cosmic cycle.
Causality refers to interactivity that is determining (present) the yet- to be determined (future).

Linear time refers to a cosmic cycle from near-absolute order - Big Bang - towards near-absolute chaos.
Life experiences this as need/suffering, and measures it using its own biorhythms - its species specific metabolism.
Even if we are to assume that the cycle is occurring simultaneously in both directions, we can only conclude that life is only possible in the direction of increasing chaos.
In the opposite direction of increasing order, life would be superfluous - no Ananke (necessity), or eros - tension.

Life is ordering within the disordering.
therefore, what makes like possible is also what antagonises its continuance - the source of resetiment.
Nietzsche - the god-king for post-modern young males - described the overman as the future man - the one who shall replace the last man - who has overcome this resentiment.  Such a being, if ever he came about, would seem god-like to the last-man.
Ergo, by describing such a man to the last-men, Nietzsche implied himself as being one - at least in the minds of men-children. This is one reason he is idolized and worshipped as a god-like hero, or a father-figure - adopted by millions of modern orphans, and emasculated minds, who see in his the ultimate alpha male - his death is what protects him from further scrutiny.
In death, icons and idols acquire a divinity not reserved for the living.
This becomes particularly poignant when expressed by desperate degenerates - eternal orphans seeking identity - a father-figure to reconnect them to a glorious past they can feel proud of.

The question 'why? 'is the most difficult one for man to comprehend.
Unable to find a purpose, he seeks it out in other, and makes of himself a slave to another - a dependent.
When a man asks this question he does not mean 'where from' or in 'what manner', he asks for a motive.....because he is too insecure, too feeble to give himself one.

Religion is a source of 'reasons' and moralizing motives...and so religion is an opiate of the masses. Religion deal in 'why?' .
Only three large religions, properly defined, exist in today's world.
Magian threesome, called Abrahamic, i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The original, Zoroastrianism, has fallen into obscurity.

Once more a proper shedding of light, discriminates and differentiates concepts - clarifying them, whereas religion and all forms of Nihilism attempt to obscure and conceal, so as to fabricate all sorts of fantastic abstractions.
Here, spirituality must be distinguished form the obscurantism of Religion.
Hinduism, for example is not a religion, but only in the minds of the ignorant and the degenerate.
it has no central sacred text, it believes in no one-god, it offers no uniformity to conceal multiplicity, it does not present itself as a mediator between man and world....it only teaches a method.  

Spirituality frees the mind from authorities. Religion enslaves them to them, making them forever dependent on a proxy.
Spiritual opens the individual to an open-ended reality - a Cosmos, i.e., world; religion encloses him within a universe, with boundaries and with occult reality, accessible only through authorities - entirely in the mind as semiotic delusion, seducing with promises of occult wisdom and power the desperate and the ill.

When science asks the question 'why?' it means 'what causes this or that?', not what is its purpose, its motive.
Why does this occur in the manner that it does?
religion asks 'why/' meaning 'what purpose, what motive, implying that even stones have them.
Here language convolutes rather than clarifies. It's misuse and abuse motivated by an intent other then revealing what is concealed - aletheia.  

Science seeks causality, religion morality - a justification, a purpose...an underlying reason understood as conciousness.

Reason means 'give me your steam of thought - the sequence of your thinking - your justification so that I may test it and accept it or dismiss it. When explaining 'why a stone rolls down a hill' the reason is of the mind, not in the stone, nor on the mountainside.  
It is a mind that gives you a 'reason' that is not absolute but a hypothetical - it is giving you its reasoning, not describing a universal reasoning.

Proper application of language would ask: What causes the stone to roll down the mountain.
Why implies there's an intent in the stone not in the mind offering his hypothesis.
When we study a stone made of more than one element we do not think there's a hidden motive as to why they 'cling to each other - we do not anthropomorphising like Abrahamics are wont to do.
We ask what causes them to ephemerally cling - the explanation is simple and does not require a occult motive.
Even the description of 'clinging' implies a projection fo a human into the stone - man projects his understanding of himself, which is incomplete and self-serving.

He may just as well ask: Why do these different elements embrace so lovingly?
Implying what it has no way of justifying.

Did not Christianity describe God as 'love'?
Herd psychology, borrowing the term from the one who exposed the underlying psychosis of this state of mind.
A herd must see its fellow herd members everywhere, so as to feel safe.
Everywhere ti looks it sees itself reflected back - solipsism.

Normally this would lead to a death if practised and not simply stated - but not in today's protective society. State is the farmer keeping the cattle safe and warm - protecting them from their own vulnerability so as to cultivate unfit, for them, traits, that benefit himself. Parasitism.
If it were predatory it would be honest and obvious. Farming is a form of parasitism.

Spirituality is not a word/symbol with magical properties.
Saying it, speaking it, including it in a sentence, does not give you mystical powers.

Spirit refers to mind, or mind/body synthesis, where mind - the abstract, the noetic - is placed on the forefront.
At its core it speaks of how an individual, or a group, relates to reality, i.e., how they understand and react to world.
Religion refers to the institutionalization or the control of spirituality by a community - an authority.

Magian spirituality - i.e., Amrahamism - refers to the complete rejection of body, so that it becomes entirely noetic; mind unhindered, unlimited, by physicality, by the material...by science.
It is easy....and its 'difficulty' is ion seducing imbeciles and seducing infantile and emasculated minds with word-juggling rhetoric and poetics - often word-associations, with interspersed triggers.

SJW.

The question 'why?' convolutes intent with causality.
It is the favourite starting question for degenerates, i.e., hypocrites, cowards and imbeciles.
It, at once asks what causes an effect, but also implies what intent lies behind it.
For example, when asking 'why the world exists' one asks what 'caused it to exist - having already assumed that something has, but it also asks what 'purpose' what intent' lies behind it - having already assumed a creator, or a first cause, on the premises of a 'beginning'.
Beginning is part of the Nihilistic paradigm because it it presumes an absolute point - a nil, preceding a one - it also presupposes an end.

Starting from the 'ground up' - Bottom<>Up reasoning - from the earth towards the heavens; from the perceived physical towards the metaphysical and upwards towards the ideal - we immediate recognize no such point of 'beginning nor an end, so their presumption can only be ascribed to the human confusion of its own idea for the real - mistaking the noumenon as literal, and not a representation of phenomena, which in this case has no external reference, so it is entirely void of substance, i.e., pure idea/ideology; the field where nihilism flourishes.

Unable to perceive any 'beginning' nor an 'end' we must file these 'possibilities' under unjustified theories - i.e., nonsensical ideas - and move-on from there; just as we file the Abrahamic one-god under the heading unsubstantiated mythology that does not only lack any external reference but actually contradicts experience of existence - implying an absolute which would negate the actual sensually experienced world.
The world as we know it would cease to exist if their ideology were ever validated - ergo they describe reality as illusory  a divine hoax, an unnecessary ad superfluous testing phase, divine masturbation, vanity, expressing self-hatred.

Aryanism believes in no Magian absolute 'beginning' and so has no concept of a Magian Armageddon, an end of times; Aryanism believes in process, i.e., cycles; space/time continuum.
The theoretical idea of a Big Bang, is not a 'beginning' but an ongoing process.
We cannot assume a beginning or an end, for the same reason we cannot assume an absolute - recognizing in these abstractions a biological confusion of the representational abstraction for the present, apparent - similar to an artist confusing his painting of a tree for a real tree, subsequently believing it to be two-dimensional, as it is on the canvas, and easily manipulated.

We can see in the word 'why' how language, if not properly understood, can produce error, based on confusion - sometimes these confusions are intentionally manipulated by those who do understand language and its power to control masses of illiterates or untalented minds.  
A word that can both imply 'causation' and 'motive', 'intent' can be used to insert a subtle nuance that does not belong there - I've called this the Trojan Horse method, used by charlatans to integrate realism with superstition and mysticism - without having to justify the inclusion.  
Convolution and misusing/abusing language is a method of mass manipulation and exploitation - where priests and politicians, as well as salesmen flourish.

Words not anchored in reality are prone to such manipulations. Used in politics and in religion - church & state - to exploit and dominate inferior minds.

"The rational is real and reality is rational" is one of those idiocies desperate degenerates fall into. despite their huge vocabularies and artistry they have no clue what language is...other than a display piece.

Randomness implies that reality is not entirely rational, but is partially counter-intuitive, or to put it in stupid-talk to help the morons out, it is not completely irrational, and/or not absolutely rational.
To claim that the cosmos is absolutely rational is to say that God exists, and the world is his creation - the product of his cosnciuos reasoning.
The funny thing is that morons who say these things also believe they are atheists and that they've 'surpassed' Abrahamism,....or 'Christianity' because one can only hate Christianity these days - Jews and Muslims are protected species - the Muslims more of a cover...since they are closest to Judaism, so they benefit from this proximity a degree of protection.
Christians are open for all sorts of insults....'cause of their proximity to Aryanism....though a corrupted version, it still smells too much like Hellenism to be a protected group.

If a modern coward and hypocrite cannot even accept what is fundamentally intuitive, like 'what appears to be different, is actually different' and 'a woman is a woman and not a man trapped in a woman's body' then how, the fuck. can he ever hope to advance to something more advanced as counter-intuitiveness?

If he cannot even accept something as basic as intuition, then how the fuck does he claim to be anything but a moron stuck in an endless discussion of what is self-evident with other cowards, hypocrites, and imbeciles?
If he doesn't even have the balls to accept and trust his own senses, then whatever he chooses to call himself is moot.
A fucking dog has more sense than him.

Why would any self-respecting man discuss anything with him?
Best he stay with women and children, in an endless discussion over 'what beauty is'.

Spengler, Otto wrote:

This mathematics of ours was bound in due course to reach the point at which not merely the limits of artificial geometrical form but the limits of the visual itself were felt by theory and by the soul alike as limits indeed, as obstacles to the unreserved expression of inward possibilities — in other words, the point at which the ideal of transcendent extension came into fundamental conflict with the limitations of immediate perception. The Classical soul, with the entire abdication of Platonic and Stoic ἀταραξία, submitted to the sensuous and (as the erotic under-meaning of the Pythagorean numbers shows) it rather felt than emitted its great symbols. Of transcending the corporeal here and now it was quite incapable. But whereas number, as conceived by a Pythagorean, exhibited the essence of individual and discrete data in “Nature” Descartes and his successors looked upon number as something to be conquered, to be wrung out, an abstract relation royally indifferent to all phenomenal support and capable of holding its own against “Nature” on all occasions. The will to-power (to use Nietzsche’s great formula) that from the earliest Gothic of the Eddas, the Cathedrals and Crusades, and even from the old conquering Goths and Vikings, has distinguished the attitude of the Northern soul to its world, appears also in the sense transcending energy, the dynamic of Western number. In the Apollinian mathematic the intellect is the servant of the eye, in the Faustian its master.
Mathematical, “absolute” space, we see then, is utterly un-Classical, and from the first, although mathematicians with their reverence for the Hellenic tradition did not dare to observe the fact, it was something different from the indefinite spaciousness of daily experience and customary painting, the a priori space of Kant which seemed so unambiguous and sure a concept. It is a pure abstract, an ideal and unfulfillable postulate of a soul which is ever less and less satisfied with sensuous means of expression and in the end passionately brushes them aside. The inner eye has awakened.

Decline of the West

According to Spengler the Faustian spirit is about boundless space/time.
An open-ended cosmos not an enclosed universe - ergo for the Greeks Alethiea described an uncovering, contrary to the Roman veritas

Heidegger, Martin wrote:

With regard to the Latin name for the true, verum, we shall keep two incidents in mind:
1. Verum, ver-, meant originally enclosing, covering.
The Latin verum belongs to the same realm of meaning as the Greek αληθες, the uncovered – precisely by signifying the exact opposite of αληθες: the closed off.
2. But now because verum is counter to falsum, and because the essential domain of the imperium is decisive for verum and falsum and their opposites, the sense of ver-, namely enclosed and cover, becomes basically that of covering for security against. Ver is now the maintaining-oneself, the being-above; ver becomes the opposite of falling.
Verum is the remaining constant, the upright that which is directed to what is superior because it is directing from above. Verum is rectum (regere, ‘the regime’), the right, iustum.
For the Romans the realm of concealment and disconcealment does not at all come to be, although it strives in that direction in ver, the essential realm determining the essence of truth. Under the influence of the imperial, verum becomes forthwith ‘being-above,’ directive for what is right; veritas is then rectitude, ‘correctness,’ we would say.
The originally Roman stamp given to the essence of truth, which solidly establishes the all-pervading basic character of the essence of truth in the Occident, rejoins an unfolding of the essence of truth that begin already with the Greeks and that at the same time marks the inception of Western metaphysics.

The Romans corrupted the Hellenic through the process of interpretation - i.e., in the process of reproduction mutations arise and are passed on to the new synthesis, the new organism.
Our Anglo-Saxon centred world has inherited this corruption, in the form of 'truth' and in the term 'universe'.
We no longer conceptualize a kosmos but a universe - an enclosed space/time which necessitates a noetic leap 'into the non-existent' outside space/time.
This noetic leap is taken literally, and not as a method producing paradoxes - dissonance between mind/body, [physical and mental - that are passed on and symbolized via semiotics, i.e., linguistically.
This is where the Magians find fertile ground to exploit the illiterate, the untalented and the cowardly.

Spengler, Otto wrote:

Just as all becoming possesses the original property of direction (irreversibility), all things-become possess the property of extension. But these two words seem unsatisfactory in that only an artificial distinction can be made between them. The real secret of all things-become, which are ipso facto things extended (spatially and materially), is embodied in mathematical number as contrasted with chronological number. Mathematical number contains in its very essence the notion of a mechanical demarcation, number being in that respect akin to word, which, in the very fact of its comprising and denoting, fences off world impressions. The deepest depths, it is true, are here both incomprehensible and inexpressible. But the actual number with which the mathematician works, the figure, formula, sign, diagram, in short the number sign which he thinks, speaks or writes exactly, is (like the exactly used word) from the first a symbol of these depths, something imaginable, communicable, comprehensible to the inner and the outer eye, which can be accepted as representing the demarcation. The origin of numbers resembles that of the myth. Primitive man elevates indefinable nature impressions (the ‘alien,’ in our terminology) into deities, numina, at the same time capturing and impounding them by a name which limits them. So also numbers are something that marks off and captures nature impressions, and it is by means of names and numbers that the human understanding obtains power over the world. In the last analysis, the number language of a mathematic and the grammar of a tongue are structurally alike. Logic is always a kind of mathematic and vice versa. Consequently, in all acts of the intellect germane to mathematical number — measuring, counting, drawing, weighing, arranging and dividing4 — men strive to delimit the extended in words as well, i.e., to set it forth in the form of proofs, conclusions, theorems and systems; and it is only through acts of this kind (which may be more or less unintentioned) that waking man begins to be able to use numbers, normatively, to specify objects and properties, relations and differentia, unities and pluralities — briefly, that structure of the world picture which he feels as necessary and unshakable, calls ‘Nature’ and ‘cognizes.’ Nature is the numerable, while History, on the other hand, is the aggregate of that which has no relation to mathematics — hence the mathematical certainty of the laws of Nature, the astounding rightness of Galileo’s saying that Nature is ‘written in mathematical language,’ and the fact, emphasized by Kant, that exact natural science reaches just as far as the possibilities of applied mathematics allow it to reach. In number, then, as the sign of completed demarcation, lies the essence of everything actual, which is cognized, is delimited, and has become all at once — as Pythagoras and certain others have been able to see with complete inward certitude by a mighty and truly religious intuition. Nevertheless, mathematics — meaning thereby the capacity to think practically in figures — must not be confused with the far narrower scientific mathematics, that is, the theory of numbers as developed in lecture and treatise. The mathematical vision and thought that a Culture possesses within itself is as inadequately represented by its written mathematic as its philosophical vision and thought by its philosophical treatises. Number springs from a source that has also quite other outlets. Thus at the beginning of every Culture we find an archaic style, which might fairly have been called geometrical in other cases as well as the Early Hellenic.
There is a common factor which is expressly mathematical in this early Classical style of the 10th Century B.C., in the temple style of the Egyptian Fourth Dynasty with its absolutism of straight line and right angle, in the early Christian sarcophagus relief, and in Romanesque construction and ornament. Here every line, every deliberately non-imitative figure of man and beast, reveals a mystic number thought in direct connection with the mystery of death (the hard set).

[Decline of the West]

Spengler, Otto wrote:

The element of direction, too, which is inherent in all ‘becoming,’ is felt owing to its inexorable irreversibility to be something alien and hostile, and the human will-to-understanding ever seeks to bind the inscrutable by the spell of a name. It is something beyond comprehension, this transformation of future into past, and thus time, in its contrast with space, has always a queer, baffling, oppressive ambiguity from which no serious man can wholly protect himself.

[Decline of the West]

By giving it a ‘name’ the mind believes it has captured it – made it its own. The ‘magical’ power of words is found in this translation from verb to noun – its reduction from a phenomenon to a noumenon.

How do we begin to establish an objective definition of words?
Do we declare ours the best?
Do we impose ours upon them?
No.

We use a common independent standard.one preceding or going beyond any cultural influences.
Then we compare various definitions to this standard choosing the best one.
is this choice arbitrary?
No.
We judge a definition by the quality and the quantity of its references - integrating as many details into its premise.
The one that offers a plausible explanation concerning a higher degree of perceptible phenomena, is held to be superior; the one that can integrate into its definitions and explanations more experienced phenomena, in a harmonious cohesive model, is held to be superior.  
No emotions, no coercion, no trickery...no memetic influences.
This is how you 'bring it all down to earth', in a world dominated by human environments - artificial to varying degrees.
I've given my definition for 'artificial'.  

Easiest way is to study our closest genetic relatives, i.e., chimpanzees. but any large-brained social species will do, e.g., wolves, gorillas, dolphins, whales, orang-utans etc.

Using this method words like 'god', 'love', 'morality', 'justice', 'good/bad' can be defined properly, and not idealistically...nor cast away as meaningless.
No god...no force....no 'I say so'.  
I mean this is the 'fuckin scientific method and I have to repeat it like one would to children.

Not for the members of KT.
This is directed to morons.

If this basic thing is incomprehensible, then how the hell will we ever advance to more complicated issues?
But morons don't really want to 'advance'....feeling insecure, inadequate....fearing they will be left behind.
They want to stay here - trapped in linguistic mind-games...repeating the same shit over and over....
If something as simple and basic as understanding what language is, and why it evolved, is refused or denied, then one has to question the motives, or the intelligence behind such a stance.
There can be no progress....the morons are trapped in linguistics - in the terror and turmoil of their own cowardly confused mind.

So be it.
The chaff is separated from the wheat.

Another way to test a theory and the words used, is to make predictions and then apply the theory, comparing the outcome with the prediction.
The degree of divergence will indicate the degree of inaccuracy.
But is application is impossible or impractical, then the comparison of the theory, and the definition of the words used to describe it, with the perceptible world, outside human constructs...i.e., nature  
Using other species is the best way to eliminate the cultural influence factor.

All words must refer to an observable behaviour - activity - predicting a specific outcome.

Words, referring to concepts that have bee idealized - romanticized - anthropomorphized, such as love, morality, god, truth, human, male/female, can be cleansed of their human projections.
These will act as the foundation to then place concepts that do not refer to observable phenomena, and are abstract, the previous supporting the subsequent.

Metaphysics must proceed the study of physics....and when both are harmonized then ideals can be projected through them; the mind must be restricted to the physical, the body, and only then will its ideological projections, nit the future, bear fruit.

Metaphysics - Physics - Ideals - Physics, or the physical the empirical, is at the centre - the starting point, the grounding, the earth.
Metaphysics follow as supportive elements, like the foundations of a home stabilizes it within the earth, and from this edifice can the mind project upwards towards the heavens - the divine, the realm of the pure noetic.

If the components are not aligned, not in harmony with each other and, more importantly, with the environment they are placed within - as a house must be in harmony with the geography - then the entire structure is warped and will not last long.

Vidal, Gore wrote:

As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.

Words lose their meaning.
The masses become degenerate, using words to conceal their own degeneration.
The simplest, most self-evident, concepts gradually become incomprehensibly complex, and too abstract to use to come to any conclusion.

Vidal, Gore wrote:

A current pejorative adjective is narcissistic. Generally, a narcissist is anyone better looking than you are, but lately the adjective is often applied to those “liberals” who prefer to improve the lives of others rather than exploit them. Apparently, a concern for others is self-love at its least attractive, while greed is now a sign of the highest altruism. But then to reverse, periodically, the meanings of words is a very small price to pay for our vast freedom not only to conform but to consume.

A proper definition of the words 'free' and 'will' will prove that there is, in fact, free-will, just as a proper definition of the word 'god' will prove that there are, indeed, gods.
An improper definition will have the opposite effect.
An improper definition of the word 'god' will prove that there is no such entity, and an improper definition of male/female will render these concepts non-existent, and entirely social constructs.  
And by 'proper' I mean returning the word to its original role of symbolic mediator between noumenon (idea/ideal) and phenomenon (real, world).

If one wishes to make a concept non-existent, or to ridicule it, one can easily define the word, referring to it, improperly....noumenon not disciplined by phenomenon but phenomenon disciplined by noumenon; noumenon not referring to phenomenon, but phenomenon referring to noumenon.
Inversion is a symptom of Nihilism.

Therefore by 'free' we refer to the observable act of choosing, and by 'will' we refer to the observable act of focus upon an objective.  
The synthesis becomes obvious, for a mind first choose between options and then focuses upon one making it its objective.

The same applies for words referring to concepts such as 'morality' and 'love'.....
A proper definition makes both observable behaviours; an improper definition - motivated by a desire to discredit or to idealize - will define the concepts in ways that are unattainable and theoretical - ideological.
Romantic idealism does just that.
Nihilism, as well.

The subjective/objective relationship is exposed in the motive.

Words are placed on a pedestal and worshipped as sacred, or are degraded and made nonsensical.
The nihilistic method of mass mind-control.

Give a word over to desperate degenerates - particularly one that makes them anxious - and they'll quickly make it an unattainable idea/ideal or render it meaningless, void of all substance.

Give them the word 'god', and if they do not make it into an ideal absolute that contradicts experience, they'll make it into a meaningless symbol of human vanity.
They've done it with the word 'love', and 'morality'....and are now doing it to words like 'male' & 'female'.
Soon no word that threatens their nihilisms will remain free from their illness.

Even the concept of 'free-will' is now destroyed by appealing to authorities, such as Nietzsche. Once it was Jesus, now new prophets are necessary.
A few quotes from the 'prophet' renders all antagonists vanquished - the name alone is 'evidence' or an 'argument' in itself.
When all arguments fail, or evidence is absent, mention the name of the sacred prophet and you've achieved a victory.

Through their obsession/addiction to being 'commanded', to be placed under some kind of external dominance, they express their feminine slavishness, their emasculated desire to belong to something superior, more masculine than themselves - something that compensates for their own fears and inferiority.
A call for a missing father-figure - one that died too early, and was subsequently idealized, or was present but failed to be worthy of surrender, or to reach the high standards of modernism's addiction to absolutes, forcing the child to seek an alternative outside his own family.
An absolute authority....with a higher 'pay grade' - because what sells, is popular, proves its truth through monetary means.
A Protestant-Jewish way of evaluating reality.
Reality through a Banker's eye, suing words such as 'cost', 'interest', 'swaps', 'value', 'shares'; money - the Jewish messiah.
What sells is 'true', what does not sell, to the masses, is 'false'.
The chosen prophet ironically 'sold' after his death, just like Jesus, when a gifted marketing agent packaged him properly.

They do not simply want to be 'commanded' they want to be supremely commanded - absolute authority or no authority (anarchy) - if not god then some other word for absolute, and if not an absolute authority then no authority - either/or -; passively desiring to remain the 'commanded' the loyal subjects of authority, they find 'pride' in their shamelessness.
In fact they place the pedestal so high that they will be forced into the role of submissive concubine to a supreme King of all kings, towards what is for them, and subsequently for all, unattainable.

Who can challenge God.....by any other name?

A prophet is a harbinger of a coming messiah nullifying existence and man's need/suffering - taking upon himself all responsibility, cleansing the masses of their inherited inferiority - their 'sin'. God made tangible - idea made flesh. Channelling the divine.
Jesus died and then became 'spirit' representing the one-God.
Nietzsche had to die and posthumously be made an idol of a new-Age Abrahamism for the same types.
The types that exist throughout time, spanning cultural divides.
The Last Men.

How to reduce ever concept into a Nihilistic idea/ideal.

Define hyperbolically.
Make it so extraordinary, so supernatural, that nothing in existence, no experience of the existent, can ever attain it - absolute positive, 'i.e., god, order, love, morality.
From this one can go the other way, and reduce all to nonsensical, annulling everything.
Compared to the absolute positive all is equally inferior , ergo absolute nil.

Consider the concept of the absolute itself, represented by the word 'god'.
The polytheist Aryans defined it in ways they could experience, they could perceive everyday.
The original gods were their own dead - their ancestors.
Each home had its own divinity, which referred to someone whoa actually existed.

Magians and then Abrahamics plagiarizing and adapting it to their own needs, took the same concepts and inflated it into a hyperbole - an absolute one/nil dichotomy.
'One' was God, and 'Nil' was the dualistic by-product - both 'existing' as idea/ideal in the human mind and nowhere else.
Nothing experienced, nothing perceived - phenomenon - could ever match the noetic idea/ideal, rendering the existent subordinate to the theoretical - minds submitting to an idea/ideal.
God was converted to pure noetic idea/ideal - the ideal other, contrasting with the empirical imperfect existent, the present.
Man made himself a imperfect part of a theoretical idea/ideal.
Compared to the perfect, complete, absolute man remained subordinate, inferior - feeling anxiety, insecurity.

This is the source of Nihilism.

How do you render 'freedom' unattainable?
Same process.
You detach it from the empirical, the tangible, the experienced world, and you convert it to an idea/ideal that is unattainable. Then you subordinate yourself, you submit to its 'perfection' to its absoluteness, as a imperfect representation.

How do you excuse yourself from the human behaviour associated with lust/love...you mystify it, idealize it, make it into such an unattainable idea/ideal that nothing you can ever experience will ever be acceptable.

Lacking all empirical, tangible, corporal, references you then replace this lack with authorities - icons, idols, reaffirming your own ideology.
You replace evidence and proof with emotion.
you use the negative as 'evidence' - 'absence of evidence' is not 'evidence of absence' , as such nothing lacking evidence can ever be dismissed.
A reversal of the empirical process.
Proof of the absolute negative is demanded - or proof of the absolute positive.

Give a Desperate Degenerate any word and he'll either inflate it into supernatural proportions, or reduce it to nonsense.

Have you hears these fucks discuss love and humanity. They use romantic idealism, full of prose, and allegorical imagery attempting to hide how naive and idiotic it is.
Then give them a concept such as 'race' and they will reduce it to skin pigmentation so as to them summarily dismiss it.

They will get- 'wet' when reading words about 'will to power' - the ontology of the terms never in doubt, or talk to them of 'love' and they will suspend their rigid scepticism, their selective 'intellectual integrity,' will become soft and pliable and open to any absurdity, but then become hard, demanding, when their delicate emotions sense a threat.  
Suddenly "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"....nil used in the way I've described many times.
A wonderful absolutist tool.
Destroyer of world, and creator of alternative ones.

Feminine spirits swoon when they are presented with poetics that flatter and comfort their delicate feminine hearts - they are swept away.
But how vicious a woman becomes - unmatched by any man - when her motives are exposed and her desires thwarted.


Feminization of Man, at work.
It's not a theory...but a tangible observable behavioural fact.
Feminine spirit, a man void of reason and accountability...as the man said. A child, seeking a pater, becomes his own was absent or was not up to par with modern absolutist standards.

Will = focus of organism's aggregate energies upon an objective.
Organic aggregate energies are not entirely known nor under the ego's lucid control.
Ego = lucid part of self.

Therefore, the ego experiences itself as controlled by some alien to it force.
DNA represents the hidden memories, that can be triggered into autonomous reactivity - ego experiencing this as if something external were controlling it - passive observer of its own automated - organic - reactions.
The body has a standard for judging of its own  creating mind/body dissonance.  

I've described this using female sexual attraction - her mind may be dominated by a meme which her body may contradict.  
She will be bewilder by her own reactions - conflict between memetic idea, and genetic impulse.
If her ego is strong enough it will dominate, thusly believing that her lucid judgements are more genuine, and her physical judgements are some kind of external force she distances herself from.
Meme takes precedence, her ego denouncing her physical impulses - automated reactions.

Same phenomenon can be part of the 'cultured man who 'reacts to adolescent females but denies this reaction guided by a meme that has made them criminal or has associated them with 'evil' or 'baseness' - i.e., paedophilia.  
Mind, dominated by a meme - with a particular idea/ideal - will reject the body's genetic impulses, its primordial automated judgements.
He will claim that an external will was at work, so as to preserve the 'purity' of his intent - his lucid motives, directed by the ego.  
A defensiveness will be employed distancing his mind form the reactions of his own body, e.g, the body's stimulation, producing an erection, will fill the mind with shame, in relation to memetic idea/ideal of what is 'proper'.

Body - plant-like reactivity - cascading reactions triggered by an external stimuli, not requiring any mental interventions.
As conciousness evolved the mind facilitates the body's reactions.
But when self-consciousness evolves, along with gene/meme dynamics, then  the body's automated judgements can contradict the mind's learned memetic judgements.

Ego is the conciousness of self.
self = is a reference to the body - DNA, genetics.
The ego can be a bystander to its own physical reactions - as if it were happening to it, rather than it being the agency at work.

Will is associated with the ego - the lucid part becoming aware of itself - but it isn't entirely in command of its own impulses and automated reactions to stimuli.
Will is its focus, which included both that which it is aware of and energies - impulses - it has no awareness of and no control over. It acts as their agency.

Given the previous we can triangulate....separating the body/nervous system/mind triad into thee distinct yet unified, processes.

Self = DNA - memories inherited from parents - automatic reactions, impulses - GENES.
self = experiences acting as multiplier/divider of the previous - accumulating experiences, or second-hand experiences (knowledge, training) - MEME.  
Man can learn from other minds, adopting their experiences as its own. This adds to the confusion, and alienation form self, especially when these learned experiences - second-hand - are nihilistic or relatively contrary to its won impulses.
Ego = the consciousness of self - lucid part of identity, discovering self/Self as if it were some external entity - SEMIOTICS.
If language is corrupted by Nihilism this can increase the sense of alienation for self.  Self will contradict the ego, as though it were some external force imposing itself upon it.
Meme<>Gene dynamic.

To the ego the self will be experienced as a occult force(nurture), and the Self (nature) will be experienced as a Divine Other, manifesting as self.
The God/Messiah manifested as self/Self, confronting the ego, and the ego surrenders, submits to their combined force.

The words 'control' and 'dominance' also suffer under the desperation of degeneracy.
There is no absolute, so control is also not total, perfect, complete, indivisible, immutable....i.e., absolute.

We control to a degree. We are controlled to a degree.

Another way to think of it is as a relationship.