The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

try to unpack that so i can see your reasoning

1. Everyone accuses anything reductionist of being nihilistic. But reductionism is a matter of degrees. Believing in one less "thing" than someone else doesn't make you a full blown nihilist any more than believing in one less god than someone else makes you an atheist.

2. Human nature contains whatever the source of meaning is but not everything in human nature is necessary to whatever the source of meaning is

you're asserting your authorial prerogative to a final understanding of human nature and meaning, and from where it is derived you don't want to inhabit this tactical position

Look. Every second I exist is coercion. My existence is coercion. I don't care that my only consistent position is to answer back in the same terms as my enemies. It doesn't matter.

the schmittian stance isn't the only coherent political stance if all you will *ever* have is what you have, then it makes sense but if, through creation, there is a better for all in a conflict, then it becomes absurd

I'm literally trying to instate post scarcity according to the most liberal stable scheme I can conceive of.

all conceptions of post-scarcity are narrowly subjective "scarcity", if it's a fundamental problem (which thank god it is), is what drives us to progress sacrificing all progress- *all meaning outside a definition of scarcity*- to solve a *sliver* of scarcity, is nihilistic