Chapter 14: Volition’s Basic Determinants, Part III—Teleions: Difference between revisions

Lastly here addressed, were the apeiroson to be the euteleion, then this would of itself logically necessitate that all four other teleions—namely, the nihilon, the permanon, the turannon, and the dysteleion (see [[Chapter 14: Volition’s Basic Determinants, Part III—Teleions#14.2.2. The Dysteleion|§14.2.2]])—can only be pseudoteleions. Within apeirosonism, the reason for the cooccurring four pseudoteleions—together with all potential or actual trepidations as concerns apeirosonic heuristics which would bring one into closer proximity to the apeiroson—will all result from a) eidems’ dislike of what the actualized apeiroson entails (namely, a complete disappearance of all ego), b) from fear of the apeiroson being in any way false and, hence, a pseudoteleion (thereby that furthered proximity to it will necessarily result in dystelostases and, hence, volitional suffering), or else, as previously discussed, c) these aversions would instead result from eidems’ dislike of the effort involved when considering factors such as the possibility—but not inevitability—of what could potentially be yet another Big Breakup from apeirosonic proximity (to not here specify the many various examples of microcosmic occurrences wherein apeirosonic proximity within or among individual eidems ends up being followed by any manner of incurred volitional suffering due to opposition from non-apeiroson-driven interests). More succinctly expressed, within any system of apeirosonism, all pseudoteleions will via one means or another result from eidem’s fear of the apeiroson. (Given that the actualized apeiroson will be the obtainment of absolute love when “love” is broadly understood to always consist of a unity of protoceptual being, this then in some ways generally conforms to views both ancient and more recent which simplify ethics into consisting of either love or a fear of love.)

== 14.2.2. The Dysteleion ==