LOVE
Another word I like to use when dealing with Desperate Degenerates, is the word ‘love’ This is a particularly effective word with them, because they are emasculated and emotional thinkers…effete to the core - to such concepts can influence their feminized minds - not that I hold any hope with them, because most are so entrenched and invested in their won variant of nihilism that all they do is dismiss ignore and are so defensive that nothing gets through.
No secret that I’ve been using them to explain my positions to others - those silent observers who visit this forum but do not participate - dozens of them, daily…and I see them. Most come here from that other FaceBook page…which shall remain unnamed. They understand…even if Desperate Degenerates don’t or pretend not to.
This is for their benefit…an excuse, if you will, using degenerates and their predictable desperation to make my points.
So, love.
The Desperate Degenerate - positive kind - will idealize, romanticize, mystify the concept. He will paint it using prose and innuendoes and seductive words - each selected to impress, to manipulate and to exploit weakness - to sell itself. They will define ‘love’ outside existence - in a magical realm that exists underneath or above this experienced world.
The Christian variant made ‘love’ synonymous with their one-god - a divine cosmic force…replacing the attractive force, and ignoring the repulsive one. Later demonizing the latter, creating their binary dualities - God/Satan, good/evil.
Attraction = good; repulsion = evil - see all is united in god - absolute unity held together by the magical force of love. All soothing and comforting. All so feminine.
A girl can be swept off her feet when a gentleman comes a calling with such words in his mouth.
The antithesis is the cynic…I call him a ‘pure nihilist’. He dismisses the previous romantic drivel, as well he should. Replacing it with nothing…literally nothing. He may reject the naïve idealists prose, and claim that ‘love’ is a subjective thing, a social construct…and that it doesn’t really exist.
A human idea.
But both are wrong.
Love refers to an observable behaviour, found among many species - particularly those using heterosexual reproductive methods and those using cooperative survival strategies - so there’s a link here.
It isn’t an illusion, nor some divine cosmic force - a magical power.
In my view it is an evolved chemical reaction dealing with the fight/flight mechanism…but if others disagree with my theory they can offer their own, and then both can be compared to observable, falsifiable, empirical data. Not words and more words…not easy negations, on the ground that no theory is absolutely perfect and absolutely complete…but empiricism.
Which theory is more probable. Survival of the fittest in philosophical contexts.
My definition of love is not arbitrary; it is not based no my private preferences and personal tastes; not based on my upbringing and my traditions.
It is based on an objective interpretation of behaviours that occur outside human cultures and systems.
Shit gets added, over time…but if we begin with the act, the behaviour, we can cleanse the concept of its emotional and cultural baggage.
Love is an esoteric process - processes - which is externalized as particular behaviours…just as thinking is an esoteric phenomenon that is externalized as action.
Love between a parent and a child, or between friends, is not the same as erotic love - lust - yet there are connections which one of the chosen (Freud) exploited to discredit family relationships…as that type is known to do, viz., the sense of melding identifies - loss of self in other - commonality, shared destinies, shared values, purposes, interests…
Agape/Eros…both forms of Love - distinct but related.
Neither magical, mystical, nor nothing.
Love is an activity - interactivity.
Not my invention; not my preference. Nothing to do with what I prefer or hope or want.
But Desperate Degenerates don’t like this rational approach - this objectivity - because it disarms them of their mystical obscurantisms, used to cope with existence - or it negated their negative defensiveness.
Transvaluation of all values, is not the detachment of values from reality…but the return to the triangulation of subject/object/motive which is the origin of the meaning of ‘evaluation’.
Nietzsche - if I dare to interpret him in contradiction to men-children - called himself a ‘nihilists’ because he was so in relation to nihilists.
As I am.
True Nihilists, on the other hand, are so in relation to reality - their positions attempt to negate and usurp and replace reality. In relation to their delusions a realist, like myself, is a nihilist - negating, nullifying nihilism, i.e., realism.
I am negative towards nihilism…but nihilism is not negative toward me and my personal preferences, but towards reality, which I am a part of, and I try to understand as objectively as possible.
Transvaluation is contra conventional understandings and definitions…which in our Age are distinctly nihilistic - anti-real, anti-nature.
If we return the concept of ‘value’ to its original meaning, then it indicates a relationship between observer/observed and motive, i.e., goal.
A relationship based on a triangulation. It has no other meaning.
Nihilism corrupts this, by replacing one part of the triad with nil - producing a dualism - the absence of what has been negated is compensated by its replacement by the remaining two, or by covering it up with mystifications, and obscurantism…leaving a duality.
In effect the triad of value judgements is converted to a binary duality that is self-referential - solipsist.
The triad subject/object/movement-motive is converted to a duality - subject/movement,motive, and the missing object is replaced by the subject - subject/motive/subject.
Subjectivity. the world is excluded from the relationship. Everything is reduced to a subjective mind and its motives, i.e. political, ideological claptrap.
A circular self-referential inter-subjectivity replaces the triad, which includes world/reality as the standard connecting the other two in the triad in a relationship.
Okay, I’m getting metaphysical here…so I’ll stop.