terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Serpentine_Sides_of_Erosive_Soliciting Though codes of ethics are often adopted via reflexive inheritance, this does not negate importance and differences in how they arose; as whether first by reasoning, cooperative, and nuanced decision of beings, or as first by declared (second-hand, mind you) fiat whence a collective may then arise first via fear, coercion, and persecution, next by habit and the momentum of inter-generational and cultural conditioning. For the nuanced societal fiat, whether actual or self-applied by the societal subject out of as little as mere laziness, cannot be analogous to the second-hand fiat of a dogma-based icon of the Absolute, nor can the explained process of reasoned consensual collective decision be reduced to a mirror image of the blindingly icon-quoting-and-invoking that frequently marks Blitghtgeistian and especially Erosive thought — not even where their outward form and folly of form (at least in particular instances) is the same. Saturative thought may hold to this mirror motion in earnest, though often Erosive thought increasingly develops a branch whose general contempt for being-as-such extends into a crossover of ontological thought with Saturation’s compensatory nihilism. Ethical reasoning by mere external fiat is but a passing-off of ethical code and a sly sublation of the (real or potential, which in this case of ignorance or malice is in its own way real) damages of one’s own conduct, or regardless of the source of fiat; but the appeal in particular to one source does not absolve that to another, nor does their basic, outward, generally identical form either rightly elide particulars nor represent a true dichotomy from which only one (namely, the original or more loftily-fiat according to Erosive thought) may rightly be chosen, for this is still within the Blightgeistian framework. Furthermore, the particular apparatus that threatens being-as-such by direct and wide inspiration from such interpretations of ontology and the Absolute do not excuse or detract from the role of said dogma; though nor do they condemn the deep and mystical system for being whence the dogma was Blightgeistianly derived. It also does not preclude dogma from use of studies for its own ends as are used for alternative ontologies, and to situate them as though inherently separate and opposed is to fall to the false dichotomy of thought that the Blightgeist runs on — to say nothing of the comparing of atrocities with reference foremost to the oppositions to being-as-potentiate or the like instead of being-as-such, as if to draw attention away from the Erosive actions of damage on beings and against being-as-such. Further still, the existence of reasoned positions do not absolve the holder under investigation of expressing positions without reasoning, regardless of the expression of unreasoned opposite notions — especially where the holder in a situation provenly first asserts and proselytizes this notion, which is predicated (both in particular and general similar expression of such dogmas) against beings and being-as-such, and therefore in the domain of discussion needs answering for (setting aside for the moment what we may point out as its inherent invalidity in how it threatens being-as-such).