Nihilistic Semiotics
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2024 9:51 pm
The Magical Power of words/symbols...
Free-will...pertinent when discussing any concept postmoderns have attempted to discredit, including morals.
Defining concepts out of existence, or in ways that make them impossible to exist, even if we experience them daily, is an attempts to discredit what shames them, or exposes them.
In the case of free-will, they separate the two concepts and then define each in a way that disconnects them from experienced reality.
Will = we all experience will in ourselves and in others. We exp[rience it in formal choices when given options to select from; we experience will every time we move.
Free = qualifier of will, same as strong, i.e., strong will.
Here strong and 'free do not imply an absolute metaphysical supernatural state, but a qualifier of 'will'.
'Free' is measurable by the amount of options available and accessible to a willing agency.
Similarly, 'strong', as in strong willed, does not imply a will is omnipotent, or supernatural, but it indicates the will's relative power, its ability to overcome resistance and attain an objective, increasing its options.
The manner in which postmoderns define words, representing concepts, exposes their motives.
They usually begin with the idea, not the act itself.
Tope<>Down emoting, rather than Bottom<>Up reasoning.
We perceive, experience, willing, and we feel or can evaluate its freedom by the quantity and quality of options it can choose from.
Beginning from the act of willing, choosing, we realize will is real - not a thing but an action.
'Free' is now revealed to be a qualifier, in the same way 'strong' is a qualifier.
But hypocrites of this ilk want to negate certain concepts so as to claim innocence and to escape the idea that their lives could have turned out differently if they had chosen other than what they did.
Hypocrites desperately want to believe that their lives were inevitable, and that they could not have chosen other than what they did.
So, what they do is define words in ways that would place them beyond causality and time/space existence.
In this case they define it in ways only a god could attain, and even he could not meet their criteria.
Fatalism.
Regrets are evaded along with the implications of making bad choices, based on bad judgement calls.
Free-will...pertinent when discussing any concept postmoderns have attempted to discredit, including morals.
Defining concepts out of existence, or in ways that make them impossible to exist, even if we experience them daily, is an attempts to discredit what shames them, or exposes them.
In the case of free-will, they separate the two concepts and then define each in a way that disconnects them from experienced reality.
Will = we all experience will in ourselves and in others. We exp[rience it in formal choices when given options to select from; we experience will every time we move.
Free = qualifier of will, same as strong, i.e., strong will.
Here strong and 'free do not imply an absolute metaphysical supernatural state, but a qualifier of 'will'.
'Free' is measurable by the amount of options available and accessible to a willing agency.
Similarly, 'strong', as in strong willed, does not imply a will is omnipotent, or supernatural, but it indicates the will's relative power, its ability to overcome resistance and attain an objective, increasing its options.
The manner in which postmoderns define words, representing concepts, exposes their motives.
They usually begin with the idea, not the act itself.
Tope<>Down emoting, rather than Bottom<>Up reasoning.
We perceive, experience, willing, and we feel or can evaluate its freedom by the quantity and quality of options it can choose from.
Beginning from the act of willing, choosing, we realize will is real - not a thing but an action.
'Free' is now revealed to be a qualifier, in the same way 'strong' is a qualifier.
But hypocrites of this ilk want to negate certain concepts so as to claim innocence and to escape the idea that their lives could have turned out differently if they had chosen other than what they did.
Hypocrites desperately want to believe that their lives were inevitable, and that they could not have chosen other than what they did.
So, what they do is define words in ways that would place them beyond causality and time/space existence.
In this case they define it in ways only a god could attain, and even he could not meet their criteria.
Fatalism.
Regrets are evaded along with the implications of making bad choices, based on bad judgement calls.