Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Power—Nihilism As Expressivism

Power—Nihilism is a form of Expressivism which is a meta—ethical theory concerning the meaning of moral terms and ethical sentences. Example: Expressivism states that sentences which contain moral terms like “It is evil to torment infants for your own personal pleasure” do not describe objective facts. That is, moral terminology like "evil," "wrong," "good," "just," "righteous" "upright," "immoral"and the like do not refer to objective quantitative 3rd person events or any objective referent. That is such terms have no objective referents "out there" but rather only communicate subjective first person mental—states and the function of moral terms is not to be descriptive but to express inner qualitative likes and dislikes. 

Expressivism is a form of non—cognitivism. Non-cognitivism is the meta—ethical position which states that ethical terms do not express propositions and therefore cannot be true or false. That moral judgments are not capable of being objectively true since they do not describe an objective feature of existence. Thus the sentence "kicking kittens for fun is wrong" is really just communicating "I don't like that". 
Such utterances tell us nothing about the objective quantitative event known as "kicking kittens" but only about how one feels about said event. It is akin to declaring "I don't like strawberries" which tells us nothing about Strawberries" but merely about how one feels about them. So then, on this view moral ethical terms and sentences are neither true or false. Thus neither moral facts or truths exist and moral terms are really just expressing preferences, opinions, likes, and dislikes etc. However, this is not to say that preferences do not have a hierarchy or varying degrees of intensity.
For example, given human nature a person is most likely going to have a stronger inner dislike of being physically assaulted than disliking a certain color.

This of course places Power—Nihilism in opposition to Subjectivism which is the view that x is morally wrong or right if it is generally approved of. In opposition to moral realism which states that, moral terms are verifiable and real, not simply expressions of emotion. 
And in opposition to moral error theory, which contends that moral judgments try and yet always fail to be descriptions of moral features in the universe. This puts my nihilism in line with meta ethical theories such as emotivism for example. 
This is not to say that there are not those who mistakenly believe that their ethical sentences really do describe something "out there" in the world or in "God". The very existence of the moral realist is evidence of this fact. 
Moral Realism is not "true" in the sense that it asserts the existence of "objective moral values and duties" but is a means of controlling others.  

To learn more about my qualified form of  Moral Nihilism (Power—Nihilism) see my recently published book entitled "Power—Nihilism: A Critique of Moral Realisms". Here is a to where you can purchase it http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/PowerNihilism

Power—Nihilism As Expressivism 
Copyright © 2015 by James Theodore Stillwell III

All rights reserved. No part of this essay may be reproduced in any form or by an electronic or mechanical means including storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from James Theodore Stillwell III


I do not care if anyone shares quotes from this book especially for academic reasons. 

Friday, August 14, 2015

Feminism As Slave Morality.

I rather enjoyed this refreshing take on Mtv's new documentary "white people" from a young female person of African ethnicity. (Here is a link to said video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtDQW2y3Fes )  Wasn't expecting this level of common sense, rationality and 'level headedness' coming from a young person of today. Most kids nowadays seem (in my experience) to be brainwashed by some progressive anti white, anti exceptionalism which so permeates the American mainstream that not conforming in anyway can cause a white person to loose their job, their educational opportunities etc. As she mentions in the video 'white liberal colledge Professeors' demonize their un suspecting white students by drilling "white guilt" and the notion of 'white male cis gender privilege' into their young impressionable minds.
Had I encountered such non sense when I was in school I would have easily dismissed such half baked lunacy as mad inebriated ravings. My inability to not call a spade a spade and my ability to critically examine, renders me un suitable to be victimized by such psych—warfare in a colledge lecture hall.

As to watching the actual documentary (if it may even be worthy of the title) I must say that I have 'gotten around to it' and it was painfully biased and fallacious. It was time wasted that I will never get back. I did not see a single citation as to the statistics he mentioned briefly. Excuse me if I question his so called statistical studies and demand access to his sources. Had this had any actual accademic weight I would think these sources would have been provided. Obviously, none of these kids were astute enough to ask him for these source studies or question the very premises upon which this "documentary" was based. If they had I highly doubt they would have made it to final cut as they would have surely been edited out. Progressivism and feminism are yet more examples of  "get em while they're young" religions.

3rd wave Feminism is just another religion with a boogie man and a protected power class or priesthood (With its Anita Sarkesians). A religion with core dogma its daft adherents hold as sacrosanct and swallow whole without firing a single synapse. It begs to be laughed out of existence.

It uses psychological warfare (bad conscience) just like Ray Comfort and his street preacher goons and is fueled by what Nietzsche called resentment. It is a product of the slave revolt in values, an inversion of master values and a proliferation of slave sentiments. It makes whining infants of mankind, and is the opposite of all that is noble, all that is of "the higher man", all that is of what I call the 'I—Theist'. It is the glorification of victimhood. Its Puritanical hatred and suppression of human nature and biological instincts. Christianity has its "equality before God" while progressivism and feminism has its "equality before the law", an inversion of master morality.

As Nietzsche noted these types of slave virtues are clever devices designed to exult and empower the weak and the meek while denigrating the strong and the privileged. It like all slave values were brewed in the caldrons of resentment. Evangelists like Ray Comfort use  what Nietzsche called 'bad conscience' as a means to psychologically manipulate his would be converts into submission. "Have you ever looked at someone with lust?" these Evangelizers ask. They simply assume such instincts within the human animal as "evil". They demonize human nature.
That is they assume that conformity with a Sky Master's edicts is 'what ought to be' as all obedient little slaves do. Like a woman who acquires her opinion of herself from her male confessor, and a vane man who derives self worth from the appraisal of others. Thus they prostrate and prostitute themselves before any opinion which come along while the I—Theist, The un allied mind, only submits himself to his own evaluations. He is a 'value creator'.

They want to guilt others into conformity. Feminists want to convict their victims of 'sin' and shame them into thinking that privilege = bad. That being an exceptional or privileged is evil. They want to drag all that is exceptional, all that is noble down to the lowly subterranean ooze from which they slithered. They seek to demonize the "abled" and all that is of the mighty. How easy Christianity has made it for these equalitarian slave moralists. It has already laid the foundations.
"Everyone must be equal" they exclaim when in reality they are a slave revolt, a supremacist movement that is too weak to conquer by any other means than that of sneak thief manipulations. The weak and feeble cannot physically overpower the strong so instead they are cunning. But what is good & bad from a 'higher mans' or Noble mans perspective? Nietzsche's answer is 'All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.' (The Antichrist, section 2)

The Christian slave class of the first century could not conquer nor seek recompense via the sword and thus the cunning lie of a metaphysical day of reckoning was concocted. The once mighty war God of the Jews was reduced to a god paradox, a god contradiction, a suffering servant nailed to a stake. It was demoted to a god of the lowly meek, and weak.
Behold The crucifix! What does it symbolize but a God of the weakling nailed to a stick?
Thus the inversion of Roman aristocratic values was perpetrated. The proud active egoic values of the noble was replaced with the reactive herd morality of the slave and vassal. Rome, that once great empire, the foundation of western civilization was soon there after reduced to rubble and mighty was its fall.
Their evaluations proved to be 'a secret path to nothingness'.

A family is a miniature society, a society an extended family. Cultural marxism has destroyed the family and now society is being rend limb from limb. Gone are the days of the faithful house wife who vigilantly guards and nurtures her young and hard working fathers who pours every ounce of himself into his progeny. Now are the days of 'child support and family law'.
Long lost are the days of familial fidelity. A once functional family unit has now become a dysfunctional hell. Marriage now only mere chum to the ever prowling 'shark in a suit'. Divorce is an industry and the State institutions, the moulder of a new generation of slaves. Children are left to blankly gaze into the flickering lights of an electric box. Their tastes formed by marketing executives. Their values dictated by the ever expanding, and ever increasing domination of the Matriarchal State.
Have ye not heard o ye resentful wives? The State will be your new provider with its cash assistance, foods stamps, Hud Housing, and Wic programs. Did your husband anger you? Have ye not been instructed that through a legal lie all that a man has can be yours without trial or evidence? Your new protector the State will even give you a free professional liar. Your very own venomous viper in tie. Such is the decline!

The type man, the strong man, that proud beast of prey who had built civilization has now been reduced to a self loathing, a groveler slave of "The gynocentric State".
Now, hath over-civilization tamed and enslaved him and imprisoned his barbarous free spirit. It has inverted his virtues through a host of appalling lies. In the end slave ideology will leave civilization in a state of ruins just as it did Rome.
Empires have come and gone, only this time I doubt there will be anyone competent enough to rebuild it. This is the era of "The Last Man".
The day of the Samurai, the Viking and Homeric hero has long passed.
Man has been reduced to a laughable caricature. Man is no longer a conquering warrior but a tamed beast in a zoo. The once proud lion is now only a domestic house kitten. His conquests and primal adventures now only consist of pixelated phantasms on a screen, his sword is reduced to a plastic controller and a couple Cheeto encrusted buttons.

In my opinion, feminism and other such ideological ilk begs to be mocked into the depths of Oblivion and exposed for idiotic dogma that it is. God is Dead and so is 3rd wave feminism. It just doesn't know it yet! If you buy into its "white male privilege" and patriarchy bullshit you are an intellectual amoeba worthy of a logic spanking in my book.
Egalitarianisms, Feminism! They are but pus filled limbs that need to be amputated and flung into the fire before their gangrene taints the rest of the body.

Feminism As Slave Morality Copyright © 2015 by James Theodore Stillwell III

All rights reserved. No part of this essay may be reproduced in any form or by an electronic or mechanical means including storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from James Theodore Stillwell III

I do not care if anyone shares quotes from this book especially for academic reasons.

To watch the video I referred to in the beginning of this essay click the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtDQW2y3Fes

Friday, August 7, 2015

Is Patriarchy Real?

Hi everyone, Athena Brown here, founder of 4th Wave Feminism.  I've been invited to share an article on modern day Patriarchy in the US.

But before we get started, some of you probably have a (very understandable) knee-jerk reaction when you see the word "feminist", and for good reason.  Feminism (specifically, Third Wave Feminism) has indeed departed from the Women's Right's Movement, and has become a forum for blaming all societies problems on hetero-normative cis-gender white men.  There are many ways Third Wavers set out to do this, most of which involve concocting pseudo-academic intellectually verbose "theories" that make man-blaming sound more legit.

One of these is "Patriarchy Theory" - the idea that the modern day US is secretly controlled by the central villain of the Third Wave religion: cis-gender straight white men.  Third Wavers illustrate their theory by pointing to absolutely any aspect of modern day living they find unfair, and saying that it's been made that way by the Patriarchy.  And of course, we know the patriarchy is real because of the injustice we see.  We have all this injustice because of the patriarchy.  And how do we know the patriarchy is real?  Just look at all this injustice!

Much like young earth creationism, most patriarchal claims have alternative explanations that are better supported by evidence.  For example, according to Patriarchy Theory, men whistle at women because "they've been trained by the Patriarchy to see women as objects" - although it could also be possible that men are simply attracted to women, and want to express themselves.  Patriarchy theory also says women are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes because of the patriarchy too - even though absolutely positively every single study ever conducted on the wage gap has shown that it is caused by women's personal decisions about work.  And finally, as with any belief system, we'll see the either-or use of interpretation.  Hold a door open for me?  How dare you!  I'm a woman!  Fail to hold a door open for me?  Well there you go - male privilege.

But aside from the fact that positive claims for patriarchy are immediately falsifiable, are there any observations that would make it seem outright impossible?  The answer: there are hundreds.

Lets begin by using the absolute loosest definition of patriarchy so that it has the greatest possible chance of survival against rational inquiry; it's a system wherein "masculinity is favored over femininity".  If that were true:

-- Why is it totally okay to beat a man in public, but men can't even LOOK at a woman without it being labeled and denounced?

-- Why would we have laws allowing women to file charges of sexual harassment because of a swimsuit calendar in your cubicle?

-- Why would we lower the physical requirements of women joining, police departments, the military, and remove tests for fire departments altogether,  even when it's been repeatedly demonstrated that women who actually bothered training would have no such need?

-- Why would I, as a woman, be allowed to board the bus ahead of someone who was clearly standing in line before me?  Why is it when I drop something, three different men reach to pick it up?  Why am I always allowed to use the restroom when the sign clearly says "no public restroom"?  Why do I not have to pay for my own meals on dates?  Why can I use the men's room if there's someone in the lady's room, yet if a man tried that, he'd probably be arrested?

-- Why are convicted killers of women more likely to get the death penalty?  In a patriarchy.  Where masculinity is more valued than femininity.

-- Why are women almost never given the death penalty?  In a patriarchy.  Where femininity is not as valued as masculinity.

-- Why do we punish men just for the accusation of rape, but there's virtually no recourse at all towards women who falsely accuse men of rape?  If we valued men and not women, shouldn't this be... reversed somehow?

-- Why would the suicide rate for men be 3 times higher than for women?  In a society where they're more valued?

-- Why are you able to stand up in public, anywhere in the modern day US, and shout "WOMEN ARE SMARTER THAN MEN!" - and get applause, yet if you did that same exact thing and shouted men were smarter than women, you'd get beaten up?  No need for hyperlinks here - just go out and try it yourself.

-- Why is it I can walk into a club wearing lipstick and eyeliner and have men fawn over me, yet for a man to have women fawn over him, he'd have to be a billionaire?  What does money matter when men are more valued than women?

-- Why would the Justice Department have an entire branch set up just for violence against women, even though domestic violence has been shown repeatedly to happen at equal rates to both men and women?

-- Why would this happen?

-- If a building is on fire, how many people would rush in, risking their lives, to save Bob, the big fat bald-headed accountant?  How many would rush in to save Tammy, the bikini model?  Almost everyone goes for the model – but why, when Bob is more valuable because penis I mean "patriarchy"?

-- If a woman is inside her house naked, and a man walks by and looks in the window, he’s a peeping tom, and gets arrested.  Yet if it’s a man inside the house naked and a woman walks by, it’s still the man who gets arrested.

-- Why is almost 3 times as much spent on breast cancer than on prostate cancer?

-- Why are we all okay with men being called nearly ever name under the sun, but we need to "ban bossy"?

If you want to see what patriarchy looks like, just imagine a world where we flip all of these around.  Imagine living in a country where is the exact opposite of everything we have in the US now.  That might arguably be a "patriarchy".

Is there any such place on earth that exists right now?  Are there places where women are treated like trash just for being women?  Why, yes, there is, as a matter of fact, glad you asked.  And that's probably the best indicator that we DON'T have that in the US.  And that's the answer to the original question put forward; yes, patriarchy is real, but not in any developed first world nation.

The job 4th Wave Feminists have in front of us is to acknowledge legitimate women's issues and get to work on them, while debunking the myths created by the Third Wave that hurt everyone.  If you're interested in more, be sure to like and subscribe.

And thanks, James!







Monday, August 3, 2015

On DeCasseresian—Nihilism: The Irrelativity of All Relatives

In this lecture I will attempt to expound the seemingly impossible to harmonize and explicate ontological and pantheistic nihilism of writer Benjamin DeCasseres.
Benjamin DeCasseres was born in Philadelphia April 3, 1873 and passed away December 7, 1945. He was an American journalist, critic, essayist and poet.

In his final work entitled "Finis" written on his death bed in 1945 Benjamin DeCasseres laid out his meta ethics, and ontology, and his pantheistic nihilism.
In the Forward he writes:

"I entitle this book FINIS not because it is necessarily my last book but because it expounds my conception of the END for which this universe exists. For, it seems to me, that if there is one ultimate fact that can be affirmed without contradiction by a human mind it is OBLIVION. FINIS, in a manner, is a summation of all my books, of my lifelong beliefs."

Clearly in the above quote DeCasseres makes it clear that this book is an authoritative reliable summation of his philosophy.

In this article however, I will be focussing only upon his ontology and attempt to elucidate what he wrote in the first chapter of Finis entitled "THE IRRELATIVITY OF ALL RELATIVES" in which he laid bare his ontological views concerning existence.
1 He begins by stating that "whatever is, is relative". For the sake of clarity "Relative" in this context means "something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature etc. (opposed to absolute )." As defined by Dictionary.com.
In this first chapter he makes it clear that this is how he is using the term "Relative" when he stated quote:

"What we mean by a relative universe is that one thing (any thing) can only be known (we can only become conscious of it) through some other thing. Black is known because of white, I because of you, water because of land, pain because of pleasure, etc., etc., ad infinitum. The external universe is only known because it is related to an internal universe—the brain, the consciousness, the emotions. All, then, is relative. All is interdependent."

We like to think of ourselves as discrete autonomous beings, but in "reality" we are contingent codependent arisings. That is we are —along with everything else only existing in relation to other things. Things (that is shapes, relational properties) could not exist without the nothing—ness of space surrounding them. One could ask the question "if everything was red how would you know?". When this emerges that emerges, when this disappears that disappears. It should be noted however that this notion of a contingent relative existence is nothing novel on his part but is actually found in the Buddhist doctrine of "codependent origination".
In this context he is using the term existence to mean "that which stands out".

DeCasseres however is not satisfied to stop there but probes further. He asks "But to what is the sum of all relatives related?". He realizes that "relatives" cannot logically be an absolute or ultimate since such would be a contradiction. To put it another way if the sum total of all relatives (or the some total of existence) is not related to anything then the relative becomes the "absolute" and therefore he concludes that the "relative" ( or that which stands out) must be an illusion. An absolute doesn't exist in relation to anything else, and if the sum total of relatives is not related to anything then it is an absolute which we have already seen is a logical contradiction.
DeCasseres is using the term absolute (again to borrow from Dictionary.com) to mean "something that is free from any restriction or condition, something that is independent of some or all relations." An absolute is not relational and has no opposite. In other words it is not relative, it is not contingent. The human organism along with all other organisms are contingent upon certain conditions which are in tern contingent upon other conditions (or relations).
The absolute by its very nature is not "that which stands out" and thus does not exist. Thus the absolute cannot be an object of knowledge for an "object" is by its very nature relative to what it is not.(space and other opposites).

He then concludes that you and I as a provisional nexus of opposites and contrasts have no ultimate existence but really exist in "The Absolute".
We are the absolute experiencing itself and experience cannot happen without relationships. Thus the absolute experiences it self as relational properties or as separate and fragmented. That is as relatives.
In his book Chameleon: Being a Book of MySelves he speaks of man as "a phenomenal fragment on an infinite sea of being".
And in the same book he refers to the Absolute as "The Nothing Everything". Or to quote from his poetic magnum opus Anathema: Litanies of Negation

"I reverse all axioms. Out of nothing comes some- thing, as a god is born of the air; out of something comes nothing, as all things return to me."

And later in his book Chameleon he said quote:

"The Star sees itself through the medium of the human eye. And the moon shines on itself".

"The star", "the human eye", and "the moon" are ultimately only concepts. Thus  "the star" "the human" "the eye" and "the moon" along with every other so called "thing" are really one process with no absolute distinctions. Concepts are one way in which The Self (the Absolute) carves itself up into relatives.
In a sense then no things exist, only process, occasion, event. That is, ultimately even from a 3rd person perspective only the seamless absolute exists and not an endless collection of "things" or relatives.


Or as Alan What's explained:
"..."Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off and don't feel that we're still the big bang, but you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually—if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning—you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you I see not just what you define yourself as...I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that too, but we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it." ~Alan Watts...

PANTHEISM
DeCasseres had many names for his deity.
The Irrelative Absolute
The Super—Infinite
The Super—Consciousness
Presence
Oblivion
The God of Negation
The Great Necromancer
The Super-Naught
And so on...
For DeCasseres The Absolute (or "God" if you want to call it that) is not conscious or aware of anything as a whole.  However, as little localized portions it experiences itself as little selves "individuals" which as already stated are ultimately merely an illusion of separateness and relativity.
The "in it self" is absolute nothingness. In the 3rd chapter of Finis DeCasseres wrote the following concerning the Absolute he labels Oblivion.

"for all of mind and all of matter and space and time and all that has ever existed or that ever will exist are such "stuff as dreams are made on"—and the extensionless Dreamer is Oblivion whose other names are Timeless Eternity and Spaceless Infinity."

The absolute is by definition not a thing or relational property but is whole and limitless and therefore cannot be in actuality fragmented.
Relatives, (that which stands out) only "exist" as illusions or maya!

In his book Anathema: Litanies of Negation he writes:

"With you I have labored through the Uncon- scious, through the waste-matter of worlds and forms, evolving the eternal Illusion—we the tools and the scaffolding, the elaborate experiment in Time of a God sick of his error, who struggles up through the morass of our souls to the citadel of our final negation."

And in his book Chameleon: Being A Book of Myselves he refers to the Absolute as "The Self".

"All the waves of Time can be held at peace in the lap of the mind, all delusions can be held in the pupil of the eye, and the mouth of pain can be twisted into a smile.
Against the infinite screen of Self the world-shadows come and go, and the fireflies of knowledge emit their light and fall dead forever, and Chance undulates in countless waves, or swirls or spouts, bearing peoples and nations to the crest and silently dropping them into the hollows of Oblivion. Against the screen of Self is all this pictured and each one may see it, for each is that Self.  If the objects of the so-called material universe are nothing but states of consciousness, then there is no one particular state of consciousness that has a greater validity than any other state of consciousness.

Thus DeCasseres' pantheism consists of an irrelative absolute which spins a web of illusory relatives and experiences itself as the opposite of what it (not an it) really is. Or as he so eloquently put in Anathema: Litanies of Negation;

"I walk through the woods flecked with the gold-leaf of noontime, drowsy with whispers, and the oaks bend to me, and the birds call to me (or is it I who chant gayly from their throats?).
I dandle the sea on my knee and allow it to slap me in the face with its foam as one allows a child so to do. It knows me, the space-eater, menstruum of time, avatar of the Inscrutable...
Thus do I sport in the hippodrome of the Cosmos, drinking sometimes at the founts of the finite, lounging through the Louvres of creation, sometimes at watch from the eye of the Sphinx, or nonchalantly watching the hens warm me out of an egg. For verily I am a sportsman."

 Paradoxically then, the illusion of relative existence cannot exist without the absolute irrelative and is yet ultimately not separate from it. The absolute cannot be imaged or it would not be the absolute.

It should also be noted that unlike vedanta the absolute is not ultimately some kind of pure awareness or consciousness. Consciousness and awareness is contingent and can arise only when there is something (or an illusion of something) to be aware of.
Thus consciousness or awareness cannot be Absolute.
However, I would also like to make clarify that the subject and object are one and according to DeCasseres this can be realized through a kind of Super—Consciouness. Quote:

In these moments we know that all our states of mind--personality itself--are merely a lower activity of that Super-Consciousness. it is not known through thought. It is felt as a Presence when there is the least conscious thought in mind, it is known, comprehended, with a degree of certainty to which a transitory state of mind can never attain. It comes as a supreme Awareness, abolishes by absorbing, object and subject, Time and Space.

It seems to me that this kind of awareness allows one to momentarily return to the source (so to speak).
Perhaps it was His view that this kind of subject—object dissolving awareness was achieved in the heights of the evolutionary process (or evolving oblivion as he puts it)
In his book "Finis", in a chapter called "THE PRESENCE: Hymn of a Nihilist to OBLIVION:" he wrote:

"My pain and my pleasure are unknown to Thee as a moth is unknown to the lamp, 0 Presence ! Black with despair or rubescent with joy, I walk in Thee, 0 Presence ! Sleeping, I drift in Thee like a blind fish. Waking, I sail the boat of my soul on Thy Being, 0 Presence ! When I have acclaimed Thee there is no applause. When I have cursed Thee there is no frown, for Thou knowest me not, 0 Presence !"

Thus the above quote clearly shows that The absolute is not as a whole aware of its myriad of finite selves and only as a particular manifestation of a finite self does awareness emerge.
Consciousness is not fundamental. The absolute is not just pure awareness or as the Buddha noted:

“There is, brethren, a condition wherein there is neither earth nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor the sphere of infinite space nor the sphere of infinite consciousness, nor the sphere of the void, nor the sphere of perception nor non-perception; where there is no 'this world' and no 'world beyond' ; where there is no moon and no sun. That condition, brethren, do I call neither a coming nor a going nor a standing still nor a falling away nor a rising up. It is without fixity, without mobility, without basis. THAT IS THE END OF WOE."
--BUDDHA

In other words the "in it self", Absolute or God is absolute No—Thing—ness. If it helps Think of his notion of the absolute as the distinction—less black board upon which stories are written, the un manifest from which manifestations (or that which stands out) appear. Or as DeCasseres put it "the un create Nil".  In the 3rd chapter of Finis DeCasseres wrote the following concerning the Absolute he refers to as Oblivion.

"for all of mind and all of matter and space and time and all that has ever existed or that ever will exist are such "stuff as dreams are made on"—and the extensionless Dreamer is Oblivion whose other names are Timeless Eternity and Spaceless Infinity."

Ultimately then, consciousness is part of the illusion. That is ultimately the separation between "subject" and "object" doesn't exist but the illusion of such must exist in order for there to be awareness of a thing. The subject and object are one and neither are fundamental. To put it another way when the moon (the object) shines on the subject or "the human eye" it is actually shining on it Self. Since again, everything is reality one process and these particulars are ultimately only useful concepts or ways of configuration. When the eye dissolves there is no awareness of shining because awareness is a process and when that process dissolves there is only Oblivion which is the Absolute Irrelative. The ultimate fundamental. The Ultimate, the source— the "no—state" from which states emerge for a while and then pass back into Oblivion. Like a finite wave emerging from an infinite sea only to merge once again. While there is wave there is distinction (that which stands out) but ultimately no separation ever occurs. There is only the infinite.
Everything is really the Nothing—Everything. Man is quote "a phenomenal fragment, a temporal circumstance, a momentary coagulation of debris on the infinite sea of Being."

The Absolute may experience it Self as little localized selves but this misperceiving is the mirage of Maya! That is a product of the illusion of fragmentation.
Quote:

"The individual is God differentiated."

One further example of an illusion (or Maya) would be how we platonically think of objects moving through time and space, when they are in actuality all one. If we were to speed up time we could better see the seamless fluidity of reality.
One more example could be the appearance of solidity. That is there appears to be solid objects but we now know that what we think of and feel as solid, is actually 99.999999999999 % empty.
"Things" don't pass through things because they are levitating on an electrostatic field. When you sit on a chair, you may think that you are touching it, but that is a kind of Maya of the senses.
All that is existence, is that which "stands out" which is ultimately Maya.

"we do not live in a world of substantials, but in a world of pure relations, which are the uniting link of cognition between illusions"
Chapter 2 of Finis by Benjanmin DeCasseres


Copyright © 2015 by James Theodore Stillwell III

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by an electronic or mechanical means including storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from James Theodore Stillwell III

I do not care if anyone shares quotes from this lecture especially for academic reasons.

If you enjoyed this essay and found it informative considering checking out DeCasseresian—Nihilism facebook page https://www.facebook.com/DeCasseresianNihilism