As subjects to Time, the human would find itself by the fire, attempting to warm itself up

and make sense of the passage of time. Some would wish for it to go slower, faster, or to go

forward, or that the moment doesn’t end. These individuals have not accepted reality as it is, giving

it adjectives such as “cruel” or “boring”. Yet no matter what is done, Time will keep going, and Man

will keep being a victim of it in its wake. As I’ve discussed previously, there is nothing that can be

done to change the most primordial of things to occur. So far removed from any concepts and ideas

thought of by the human; perhaps that is why it is such a primordial force.

	But this is not about the nature of Time itself. Rather it is about the need for humans to make

peace with it. Beyond the acceptance of death, there is also a need for the acceptance of the passage

of time. Relatively intertwined with the knowledge of our own mortality and the inner personal

agreement to our eventual end, to accept Time as it is would result in the complete acceptance or

rejection of our lives, and by extension, of life itself as we know it. While I have numerous time

voiced by position against the ideas of removing death as a concept, more than like the Romans did

in Antiquity, which was by a cultural push to change how talk was made: Instead of saying “such a

one has died”, they would instead say “such a one has ceased living” [That to Study Philosophy is

to Learn to Die – Michel De Montaigne].

	The current push to remove death is the expedient removal of old age, and by extension,

stopping our organs from decay until our vitality is drained for good. While it is appealing to live

for a longer natural life, the “natural” is removed as soon as it is tempered with in such an

existential way. The understanding of death would therefore be skewed, and deemed possible only

through “accidents, other incurable diseases and malice”. “Other incurable diseases” because one

needs to see ageing as a disease to go and try to stop it. However, it is unavoidable to see it as an

ailment for everything that it causes, which makes their position understandable. But to reject such

a natural part of life is to reject life itself. Breaking the cycle means breaking the understanding we

have of our fundamentals. The knowledge of our dealings with death will be remembered still in

our DNA for many generations, but eventually, its full understanding would vanish. What would

that do to how History is told and understood? As historians make History, perhaps they will be the

ones to tell the future past that will seem to alien and out of this world.



	In any event, this present day still sees and will keep seeing the nature of Death as it was

meant by Nature. And, no matter what happens, Extinction will occur, and Ruin will take place.

That is the most dreadful knowledge we can possess as humans. As it stands; and I hope it will be as

such forevermore, it is in our complete inability to stop the complete disappearance of Nature.

Although I understand we may be in this world to prevent such a thing from occurring, Nature

being intrinsically linked with the Universe make it so there is a specific understanding of the

fatality of all, and eventually, of none. To simply exist as material or particles, devoid of movement

or anything at all; the simple matter would be all that is, and no memories of what was before would

be held.



	What this means for the present day and for conscious beings such as humans is simple

enough: While beliefs stir up the drive for survival, the desire to strive for comfort and the innate

pursuit of pleasure, they also remove the ability to understand and accept Ruin. What this enables in

turn, again and again, is the corruption of ideas and ideals up to a point where fanaticism props up

as naturally as it would have for ancestors centuries and millenniums ago [A Short History of Decay

– Cioran].

	This is a very human thing that goes beyond the protection of bonds that others form towards one

another: The bond is not from and for a being, but rather from a being to an idea.

But all conflicts that arise from giving so much identity and meaning to an idea thought of by other

humans is a sure way to keep on forgetting the reality of this world, and by extension, of the

Universe. This is a flaw that Nature gave to Humanity: consciousness seem to have brought up the

possibility to create ideas, and to give them meaning beyond what they are and what should be:

neutral, abstract, and without plurality. Morality would not apply as morality itself is an idea. And

yet, to function as communities, morality is needed and required. It is decided by what Nature

wants, rather than what the human wants. Co-existence is a natural idea, and the survival of oneself

is the root of this. As it is easier to survive by co-existing between beings, new ideas that would

promote the well-being of the self and others is only a product of evolution. Ideas that go beyond

what Nature intended initially are the by-products of what was given to us by Nature, while also

being independent of it. That is why many ideas go against Nature itself, so that what may it be a

moral good for Humanity may also be bad for the ongoing existence of nature and Nature. The

death of Death is such a thing.



	And so, to go against such an idea is to side with Nature, although it is not to side with the

Universe. Once again, I will repeat: Ruin will occur no matter what, and Extinction is inevitability.

Nature exists because the outcome is accepted. Only humans are the ones able to forget and lie to

themselves to make life easier, and comfort of a great quality; Because comfort and progress can be

pursued if there is no thought of Ruin or even of Extinction.

To accept the outcome is to understand the futility of existence. While we may exist in this time and

will keep on existing for however long, anything that is done will eventually be undone.



	Vanity (Vanitas) is a concept that is linked with the primordial force that is Time, and the 

decay of Nature. The end of cycles and the understanding of nothingness is what represents 

such a concept. But, by being as such, it becomes less of a concept and more of a certainty that 

defies the ideas humans possess. And this concept must have existed as consciousness developed, 

as the human will always be linked to Nature. All beings carry this primordial force, but conscious 

and thoughtful beings can understand and explore it, thereby communicating with the abstract and 

putting it into the material. Although any material (such as this writing) must be thought of and 

transformed into abstract understanding to possess any weight into this world. 

All that is to say, any idea or concept that realizes the importance of Ruin becomes more than what 

their names imply: they become speakers of the primordial forces: Nature, Universe and Time. 

This, in turn, enables them to be beyond what can be discarded, hence exalting, just by the nature 

of what they speak of.



	While Vanity is one such thing, Death is another, although is part of Nature, as much as Life

is. Extinction is the bridge between Nature and Time, while Ruin encompasses all primordial forces

all the while predicting the rightful end of Nature.

	Indeed, Nature started to exist as soon as Life did. Here we speak of Life as the biological

and scientific definition. However, if one believes in the spiritual, then that can be attributed to

Nature. While many individuals would argue that it could instead be attributed to the Universe, I

would argue instead that Nature is only a by-product of its own existence. After all, we are in tune

to what made us as we are, not what allowed Nature to exist in the first place. Those primordial

forces exist and act on their own and have little to no business interacting with our existence. They

merely enable us to exist because they enabled Nature to exist.



	This brings me to a word on explaining what Ruin is:

Simply put, Ruin is the philosophy of the understanding and acceptance of the end of one of

the primordial forces, namely Nature, through the acceptance of Time.

Extinction is the inner concept from Ruin that describes the end of creations from Nature.



	Perhaps all this is the creation of an idea and concepts that are very anti-life, and they are if 

they are taken at face value. However, they are a framework on which to base the present life on an

individual. It is an understanding of how to act within one’s life, based on the awareness of Vanity.

Supposedly, this would mean that Vanity becomes an inner concept of Ruin that would act under the

level of Extinction. So, now that this has been established, one can now choose to either keep on

living or end it there, as no changes would be made. This complete freedom of choice is in turn very

human, and would act within its own bubble. This strips the being from its need for survival, as the

being would understand Being within is own framework. Comparatively, this cancels out any

wishes for legacy, any of the influence that is brought upon by other beings, and all meanings that

would stem from any idea that is not directly related to the primordial forces (from now on, they

will be called Primordials).



	While this frees the individual from many ills that stems from existing within frameworks

promoting Life, this also traps the individual from many pleasures that could be experienced from

such concepts dripping from these frameworks. In a way, it would be a way to reject Humanity.

Still, this newfound understanding, if accepted and understood in its entirety, would bring about,

ironically, a new possible enjoyment towards what brings Nature to Being, paving the way towards

being content within the passage of time, regardless of what may risk the survival of Oneself. It is

the negation of the innate drive towards survival, all the while not exactly destroying the drive

towards the pursuit of pleasure; that exists even within virtue. To negate the pursuit of everything is

to negate Nature itself, in which case existing becomes impossible, in which case death is the only

way to fully accept reality. Ruin therefore enables both roads to be taken, and both will always be

possible paths to walk in.

	So, to shed one’s understanding of all human and natural concepts, is to exist within the Universe,

rather than within Nature. Still, it is impossible until Death to live without Nature, but the abstract

understanding is the full realization that the material is of no consequence. Yet, conscious beings are

the only ones able to apply this framework, and are the only ones free to choose how to lead

themselves in Vanity.

To be human without being human, is to exist in Time without existing in Nature.