“The absurd is/can be nothing more than the accident of realizing the position one has in a world that is already against one’s self before this self has/can have any real ability to be – much less become. Of course, this dimension of being is very particular to the accident: it is a sense for existence that impels one to strive within such a self-conscious state, and become the ideal, or recreate it, into the world where it is not yet. The absurd is nothing more than the enigma we cannot know, but altogether acknowledge as the void which separates our struggle from the intentions of an indifferent cosmology. As we confront its appearance (an appearance perfected out of a continual and contiguous practice, dissected between expectations that became frustrated, and a reason directed back into itself attempting to console the hopelessness felt, it happens out of the nothing returned from a carriage of dedication) we see it not as the truth untold, but as the revelation of our greatest illusion: the tangibility of meaning. It is this loss of an elusive understanding, a destruction of an involuntary faith in the something felt and the everything known… it is the second accident, after the first which prescribes us with the property of signification and the ideas of identification. This absurd is nothing short of a decomposition of that which, had we seen it before, would have disposed of our will to exist and given us the immediate sensation of an ever present death, imminently provincial. Now that we have lived the life of the ignorant, only now aware of the apparent lack in our inter-speculative truth (shared beliefs), the memory can but shame us into resisting the complete dismissal of our will, for we cannot desist entirely from the past imaginations of our own sense of being, and the identity we sought to pursue in the accord between our presence and that desire which inclined us into a future possibility. No, the will, although self-conscious of its disintegrating rationality, of its less than intuitive purpose, must see itself reconditioned rather than without place. The will must maintain itself and stare into the absence found, into the absurd encountered, and desperately seek to reduce the validity of meaning instead of regarding it with a higher estimation now that it has been declared “the shadow of Man’s emptiness within the world”. We must will ourselves into it all, and go back to whence we came as the individuals we are, as the people we were… all of this, without the desperation to be who we cannot become, and become who we cannot be.
“The absurd not only defies the sense of the world within us, it must casually dismiss the sensitive identity had of our own selves in the outer world. We do not just lose the typical in the void; more importantly, we know that we have lost the existential quality of individuality. This is not due to a nihilism that must reconvene us all, however. No, the sense of the absurd is actually what refrains our history from communing in a posterior anticipation of the nihilistic. By interlocking the vacuous in us, we contemplate only the division, never a newer truth – never a truth of no truths, solely the absence of truth in the autism we must come to revel in. Through this, the individual concerns himself with a sensational perspective: experience of the nothing. Importantly here, we must not assume this nothing to be the absolute of the outer; rather, it is only the developed causality between an intentional being and a disinterested externality, returned to him. Once he moves, the world does not react under the same pathology. The pathological beneath the experiential surface of the individual is, before his realization, an expectative source awaiting the world’s reaction to his wilful integration under the first condition he comprehends – ability to become. This ability is not a remarkable skill, solely an able-ness of the self to realize its self in the possible; possibly mutable under the desires of the pathology. The possibility could possibly change under the extremes of the pathological stubbornness. Nonetheless, this active pathology must subside in the “self-appearance” of the absurd (appearance of the absurd in the self of the individual), and the individual will have to distinguish himself now from the will he once exhibited and come to be in the experience of this abandonment. He abandons not himself, but a quality of his existence that guided him under the fiction of a sensitive world, or fictitiously made the world an appearance of a sensitive emollient.
“He must live as he always has, but in comprehension of the betrayal between two natures in which he has been implicit: his and that of the frigid independence beyond himself. This is accidental; all of it. The life of the living cannot be curtailed because of it, but it can be plausible to assume that the living in the life of those implicated between the divisive circumstances will be affected to a gravitational form of acceptance. They will accept the experience of the nothing as they remember the history of their graduated deceptions and fixated aspirations, and reveal themselves to themselves in the nudity of their self-realization (turning into) into the vacuity, also. They are a stringent part of the absence: they are the absence created. We are that absence. The experiences we have forever suffered attain the real form of their antagonisms and ambivalences in the appearance of the absurd existence, for it is the way we have always existed, only misinterpreted in the indication of its signification: we become without us and, at the very same time, profoundly reattached to ourselves as we refill the emptiness felt within with the emptiness of the absurd, replacing the elongated struggle to become with the senseless attitude of pure being. No further is there a competition for the identity, just the overcoming of difficulty to identify the other in the next person.”