'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Wills to powers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:05 am

What are these wills to powers that pulses beneath the dead world?

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:18 am

Old thesis: morality = reason.

Next stage: there exists a corresponding morality for every iterated development of reasoning. Morality is a reason's justification before itself, before that scope of truth which it is presently able to handle, and "needs".

On what basis is immorality immoral? The impulse is to state that this can only function upon a given plane of morality per its corresponding rationality. What therefore binds all moral and immoral together under such mere surfaces? It must be wills to power, because there is nothing else there.

Therefore wills to power must either participate in a kind of collective willing to power, or all wills to powers forge their agreements with each other beyond the immediate scope of either those wills or those powers. Yes, it must be this latter.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:38 am

Postmodern humans are trying to form a shared agreement on which their anti-wills to powers can create a reality. The basis of this is -1 = 1, the perfect inversion. This is a formalism and grasping for language, as for these humans no linguistic content is yet possible.

"Fat positive" is a perfect example of this. Fat (a negative) is said to equal "positive". -1 = 1.

Why is this happening? I think the will to power (deeper frame of formerly forged shared agreements of wills to powers) is playing and experimenting. "Can I forge a new language with which to will to power in new ways?"

Postmodernism is simply a hypothesis of the will to power, to see what happens. Thus we may conclude that this playful experimenting is only possible because this will to power has become dense in itself enough to sustain such extravagant anti-willings. There is no fear of postmodernism because of the simple fact that postmodernism is even possible, because if the will to power (all wills to powers under surfaces) were incapable of sustaining this experimentation then the experimentation would not be happening.

'Human being' has deepened and become dense enough to start spinning off new possible words from itself, and the first step of doing that is to craft new raw languages of being; and those language must be at first pure striving for a formal structure lacking content, a grammar-logic without any coherent semantics yet. Meaning (content) will come later. SJWs are nothing but willings to powers creating new domains of possible agreements that will be forged later, as content gradually becomes possible. -1 = 1 is the daemonic excess that kills off legions of active wills to powers for the sake of creating a new channel, a competing drive-system by which will to power simply wants to playfully experiment with itself, to see what happens. It has no fear of this, so maybe we shouldn't either.

Will to power only laughs at the tragedies it creates as a consequence of this playful experimenting. And indeed it is hilarious, the greatest joke of all that truth plays on itself. The basic impulse here of truth doing this is nothing more than to avoid boredom. That's literally all this shit is.

Superlol.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1486
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:03 am

For me, Nietzsche's "will" is equal to Chuang Tzu's "intent".

I am presently involved in a discussion of "Virtue" at the Taoist forum. I think "Virtue" is equal to the word/concept of "morality" you mentioned above.

For me, this "will", this "intent" is the desire to live one's life as they wish based upon one's own set of "Virtues", set of "moral values".

That means I should experience "my life", not reflect the life of others.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4154
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:44 am

This is outstanding.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:50 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Back to philosophy:

The Good as a notion must be derived from the capacity to value.

Not simply in the sense that the judgment of what is Good is a valuation, but much further down the line of investigation into phenomenology - we must state that the Good is the capacity to evaluate and praise existence as good.

The good is that which establishes "good" vs "bad" as a measure of relative existence-to-itself. Good is what can endure itself with open eyes, bad is that which must make sure its own eyes, as well as those of the rest of the world, are closed.

Eyes, or nostrils.


This is very interesting, because I was just thinking along very similar lines recently. I believe the question of morality and the good is difficult because we tend to want morality/the good to be one thing, a kind of monolith, when in reality there are different goods and different moralities. Different both in scope and in kind.

And there is no way to reduce those different goods/moralities into a single all-encompassing, universal moral theory; unless your universal theory includes these differences as such, as they are, and accounts for and explains them. So a sufficiently universal moral theory would actually be post-moral, because it could not afford to fall into only one camp of goods/moral modes. But it would certainly not be anti-moral, immoral, or amoral... simply "post-moral" in the literal sense that it exists sequentially after moralities. And perhaps there is a good, a morality that corresponds to this post-moral universal theoretical knowledge, but so far we are unable to know what that "universal good/morality" might be, or even if it exists, because we have not yet surveyed the vast landscape of the different goods and moralities, we have not yet forged that perspective into a truly universal understanding of not only what is morality and the good but also what are the moralities and the goods, and how and why, and how and why do they relate to one another. I am currently working on this task.

(And for me at least, I cannot say that self-valuing is the final universal moral good that is truly post-moral, because for me self-valuing is both pre-moral and moral-coextensive. Self-valuing is there at the beginning before any goods or moralities exist, and it is there also alongside every good and every morality, and likely it is also there alongside every post-morality; but as a logical consequence of its necessity in this manner, it cannot also be identical with that which occupies the most "post-moral" position, unless we can explain how necessity and sufficiency are identical in this case.... or unless self-valuing is the singular quantum base unit in a vast pyramidal hierarchy of existence wherein the different goods and moralities converge upward continuum-like until they reach the peak of true universality and post-morality in the way I describe in this post, in which case the final product of this process is no other than the very quantum base-unit of the very same process. This is a really interesting idea to think about. I am not convinced it is the case, yet, but I will give it more thought. )

When you say it is Good that establishes "good vs bad" as a measure of relative existence to itself, I agree, but I would phrase this slightly differently: I would say it is (a) morality that establishes "good vs bad" in this way and I say this because what I mean by 'morality' here is not a single, monolithic concept but rather one aspect of the total vantage of what we might consider morality to mean, namely in this case that aspect which structures and organizes beings into relations enduring over time and fundamentally ordering. You can think of a society like this: a society is a huge system that structures beings (people, things, nature, ideas, etc.) into more or less stable relations, but it does this in such a way that those beings which are thusly structured are in fact also producing the society which structures them. So you have reciprocality here, the logic of the vicious circle: society is structured by that which it structures. This is a moral truth, because "good vs bad" becomes possible in a whole new way and scale upon the ground of this social structuring thing.

Individual vs society is a more basic fact and problem than is good vs bad, in other words. The highest Good is simply the highest existence, and what it took to get there, which includes necessarily an entire host of 'moral' facts and problems that had to be understood and comprehended ("overcome", assimilated into oneself and as oneself).



Fixed Cross wrote:
Your thinking here with the sv logic produces the same sort of outline that I use, which I keep arriving at, which is this double ended situation where sv itself prescribes what down the line becomes the capacity for moral judgment, and in the end through the road of conflict and growth and growing conflict and building tensions and polarities, it gets so finely saturated with all sorts of contradictions that a universal type of "ratio" (measure) can be discerned, which would then become an overarching code. Not as a law, but as an indicator.

We can tie this in in interesting ways with your observations on BTL about WtP excess.


Yes, let's do the work here rather than at ILP.

Moral means what is right; what is right means what is just, real, and desirable. Notice we can no longer include here "what is non-contradicting", and a new layer is therefore shed sway.

Analysis of contradiction and non-contradiction with respect to morality as right as just, real, and desirable:

?

Perhaps that will have to wait until later.


Just blends with real as logical necessary consequence and blends with desirable as projection of values upon future-expected reals. Real and desirable are sometimes aligned and sometimes not aligned, hence the dual, self-contradicting or rather self-irreconcilable nature of justice. Society and individual (society versus and in terms of individual, and vice versa) is the (a?) primary category through which wills to powers forge agreements below surfaces. Languages and their offshoots (ideas, sentiments, and some scope of actions) are prior forged agreements as surfaces.

The saturation you mention is a gravity in the wills to powers world, leading to condensation leading to bringing together differences, leading to contradictions, and birthing thereby new daemonic excesses. Differences become contradictions only by being brought close together. Will to Power as underlying prior forged agreements amongst wills to powers therefore mirrors the contradictions in the gravity-condensed world of those same wills to powers. Society vs individual is horizontal, Will to Power vs wills to powers (or more accurately: prior forged agreements vs salient surface contradictions-excesses) is vertical. Post-morality must have surveyed the entire range of moralities (reasons, logics) in terms of the vertical hierarchy in order to fully confirm and comprehend every iteration, every wills to powers and the Will to Power which those wills to powers share/isometrically represent and express. To align with any one moral or immoral would be an act of "sin" for the post-moral vantage.

But this failure to align does not mean failure to value, or to understand; rather the exact opppsite, it must be a valuing-understanding as such. New codes are produced and new beings follow. But a being [sv] is trapped in a particular point with respect to the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and always experiences itself as geometrically smaller than what is around it. Therefore beings as wills to powers value the world in terms of greatness or greaterness.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:25 pm

Taken from ILP, for further analysis in light of my topic here; I will write a response to this later:


Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Faust wrote:
Was reading an article in the SEP and came upon this:
Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

Philosophers have sometimes argued that one of these fields is “first philosophy”, the most fundamental discipline, on which all philosophy or all knowledge or wisdom rests. Historically (it may be argued), Socrates and Plato put ethics first, then Aristotle put metaphysics or ontology first, then Descartes put epistemology first, then Russell put logic first, and then Husserl (in his later transcendental phase) put phenomenology first.
Thats pretty much valid except that logic needed to be put first beforehand so as to be able to speak about Ethics. Socrates never advocated poetry or free association, he seems, with Pato, to have abhorred all mytserion.

This is essentially what he did, Plato - take away the occult politics of Athens and replace it with universalism - a focus on logic that would be exacerbated under Aristotle, who caused the axiomatization of metaphysical identities.

Thanks for recycling this thread, I'm really pleased with my original reply. However, I don't think I could understand the implications thereof as well as I can now. Before philosophy arises, epistemology's basic question has already been answered, though not necessarily with the right, correct, true answer. There is already a kind of knowledge, something that is considered knowledge: common sense. Logic (the study) is really the analysis and purification of common sense. It seeks to establish the principles of what makes sense to us: to us, plural, because the logos is the word, and the word is common, communal.

As for phenomenology:

"When I was still almost a boy, Husserl explained to me who was at that time a doubting and dubious adherent of the Marlburg school of neo-Kantianism, the characteristic of his own work in about these terms: 'the Marburg school begins with the roof, while I begin with the foundation.' This meant that for the school of Marburg the sole task of the fundamental part of philosophy was the theory of scientific experience, the analysis of scientific thought. Husserl however had realized more profoundly than anybody else that the scientific understanding of the world, far from being the perfection of our natural understanding, is derivative from the latter in such as way as to make us oblivious of the very foundations of the scientific understanding: all philosophic understanding must start from our common understanding of the world, from our understanding of the world as sensibly perceived prior to all theorizing." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".)

Note that the theory of relativity renders the notion that the sun turns around the earth equally valid to the notion that the earth turns around the sun.

There is much, much more here, but I'll leave it at this, for now. I think our projected debate on whether Value Ontology is a mystification should probably start from these considerations. Heidegger said something like, those who disregard the Nothing thereby annihilate Being (as they do not contrast Being with the Nothing). Strauss said:

"[Kojève and I] both apparently turned away from Being to Tyranny because we have seen that those who lacked the courage to face the issue of Tyranny, who therefore et humiliter serviebant et superbe dominabantur ["themselves obsequiously subservient while arrogantly lording it over others"] were forced to evade the issue of Being as well, precisely because they did nothing but talk of Being." ("Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero", restored final sentence.)

Compare:

"I think Strauss's preoccupation with the problem of Socrates [who preceded the codification of scientific language by Aristotle] in his later years reflects the conviction that the reconstruction of classical political philosophy requires a reliance upon the moral distinctions as the key to the metaphysical distinctions. Political philosophy--meaning thereby first of all moral philosophy--must become the key to philosophy itself. We have access to theoretical wisdom only by taking the moral distinctions with full seriousness. This is very clear in Strauss' marvelous eulogy of Churchill:
'We have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty than to remind ourselves and our students, of political greatness, human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence. For we are supposed to train ourselves and others in seeing things as they are, and this means above all in seeing their greatness and their misery, their excellence and their vileness...'
'Seeing things as they are' refers to the being of things, their metaphysical reality. Yet that being is seen as goodness ('The Primacy of the Good'). The spectacle of political greatness, human greatness becomes then the ground of philosophy itself, because the philosopher himself looks to this spectacle to contemplate the being of things which become manifest in the spectacle. The great statesman thus brings to light the distinctions which are the ground of theoretical as well as practical philosophy. In Strauss, the moral distinctions become the heart of philosophy. And statesmanship thus itself becomes part of philosophic activity, seen in its wholeness. This is Strauss's answer to Heidegger as well (as Churchill was the answer to Hitler)--in whom political philosophy finally disappears. If then we see in Heidegger the death of political philosophy (and the death of God, for they are one and the same), in Strauss we may see their resurrection!" (Harry Jaffa, Letter to Professor S.B. Drury, Political Theory, 15 (August, 1987) p. 324, as quoted in Harry Neumann, Liberalism, Introduction.)

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:41 am

To begin with moral philosophy would be a mistake, because morality equals the will to power (equals that reason for which a willings to powers (a being, sv) derives its relationships to its willings and to its powers). First philosophy is simply will to power, which of course includes the logic of sv. And the logic of sv also includes the will to power.

Daemonic 1: will to power / sv

Daemonic 2: individual / society

Daemonic 3: my willings to powers / your willings to powers


The point about the deep unresolvable and inexpressible violence of spirit is well taken. Sv is having sharp edges. Being cannot speak its own violence clearly enough to understand it properly (philosophically), and may only manifest this spirit in pieces and parts as the situation requires. When two people meet, they each point their own host of knives at the other; if they come to agreements or friendship then a few of those knives on either side get pointed outward in the same direction, but the rest still remain pointed at each other. This is psycho-ontology. And peace and comfort is the tempering of the violence of spirit in ratio-nally coordinated releases (consistent and/or meaningful actions and states of mind).


The Will to Power is not metaphysically original, but rather derives from past agreements of many willings to powers (beings, ideas, forces, etc.), and willings to powers derive from willings and powers being brought together under the same 'roof' by sv.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:53 am

Phenomeno-ontology of emotions: emotions tell us when reality is conforming with our willings to powers ("deeper, and greater being"). This is also what is called meaning.

The intensity of the emotion marks its purity, and its purity marks the degree of our self-alignment.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz




Last edited by Thrasymachus on Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:58 am

Analysis of contradiction and non-contradiction with respect to morality as right as just, real, and desirable:

Contradictions and non-contradictions in relation mark a tectonic plane. The point is to reconcile contradictions and non-contradictions within any given tectonic plane, at which point one is immediately thrust upward to the next, successive tectonic plane and begins to access and understand a new range of contradictions and non-contradictions. And every tectonic plane already interprets and explains from a higher purview those planes below itself, and justifies them.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:59 am

Also, I am a god.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:05 am

"The world is a will to power, and nothing besides."

Sight correction:

THE WILL TO POWER IS TRUTH, AND NOTHING BESIDES.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:09 am

Peace/comfort is the success of a willings to powers/a sv. Marxism/neoleftism is the attempt to steal peace and comfort by those who have not earned it.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1486
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:42 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
Also, I am a god.

Yes, I have heard that before.

You are the center of your universe but be careful while trying to be a god. There will always be someone around to prove that you are not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1486
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:43 am

Thrasymachus wrote:


THE WILL TO POWER IS TRUTH, AND NOTHING BESIDES.

Okay. Now we are making progress.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1486
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:45 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
Peace/comfort is the success of a willings to powers/a sv. Marxism/neoleftism is the attempt to steal peace and comfort by those who have not earned it.

That's very Daoist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4154
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:31 am

Thrasymachus wrote:


Moral means what is right; what is right means what is just, real, and desirable. Notice we can no longer include here "what is non-contradicting", and a new layer is therefore shed sway.

Analysis of contradiction and non-contradiction with respect to morality as right as just, real, and desirable:

?

Perhaps that will have to wait until later.

Ill note now that this posts to the distinction of types.
What is good for one type (of health, essentially) is bad for a type higher or lower on the scale of self valuing.

For example, to set out after dark into the jungle is very healthy for some types, but only for the type that already enjoys superior health.
Not such an eloquent example, as it isn't a moral issue. But it points first of all to the different "goods" that can be relevant to someone.

Maybe we can begin historically and see how there have bee differing moralities that have, when they grew closer together, becomes contradicting ones, in that mechanism you observe.

For example, the morality of Sparta to expose young boys to the wild to see if they will survive, versus the morality of Athens, which is related in many ways but in this way stands in stark contrast.

Quote :
Just blends with real as logical necessary consequence and blends with desirable as projection of values upon future-expected reals. Real and desirable are sometimes aligned and sometimes not aligned, hence the dual, self-contradicting or rather self-irreconcilable nature of justice. Society and individual (society versus and in terms of individual, and vice versa) is the (a?) primary category through which wills to powers forge agreements below surfaces. Languages and their offshoots (ideas, sentiments, and some scope of actions) are prior forged agreements as surfaces.

The saturation you mention is a gravity in the wills to powers world, leading to condensation leading to bringing together differences, leading to contradictions, and birthing thereby new daemonic excesses. Differences become contradictions only by being brought close together. Will to Power as underlying prior forged agreements amongst wills to powers therefore mirrors the contradictions in the gravity-condensed world of those same wills to powers. Society vs individual is horizontal, Will to Power vs wills to powers (or more accurately: prior forged agreements vs salient surface contradictions-excesses) is vertical. Post-morality must have surveyed the entire range of moralities (reasons, logics) in terms of the vertical hierarchy in order to fully confirm and comprehend every iteration, every wills to powers and the Will to Power which those wills to powers share/isometrically represent and express. To align with any one moral or immoral would be an act of "sin" for the post-moral vantage.

Yes.
It mist be able to perceive each and every morality from what I reckon is more of an aesthetic vantage point.
It must naturally have a standard to discern at all - to me aesthetics appear always the purest, "safest" place from which to judge morality without engaging in ethical or moral styled logics - that is to say, without engaging it directly, and thus transforming it.

Of course out aesthetic sense is going in my the same structural integrity that pushes outward our moral interpreting as well, but it is still less conditions with terms.

What is the aim, yes - but also, at what level does one set the aim - the aesthetics of aim-setting... the prudence or lack of it in it.
I.e. will morality become a burden or a stimulus? Will it make uglier or more beautiful? Will it dampen the spirit or set it free to itself?

Quote :
But this failure to align does not mean failure to value, or to understand; rather the exact opppsite, it must be a valuing-understanding as such. New codes are produced and new beings follow. But a being [sv] is trapped in a particular point with respect to the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and always experiences itself as geometrically smaller than what is around it. Therefore beings as wills to powers value the world in terms of greatness or greaterness.

Yes, exactly the tis the challenge - we can not judge from a void. Standards must be in place.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4154
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:41 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
To begin with moral philosophy would be a mistake, because morality equals the will to power (equals that reason for which a willings to powers (a being, sv) derives its relationships to its willings and to its powers). First philosophy is simply will to power, which of course includes the logic of sv. And the logic of sv also includes the will to power.

Daemonic 1: will to power / sv

Daemonic 2: individual / society

Daemonic 3: my willings to powers / your willings to powers

Im very interested in this.

Id say that D1 is in essence vertical, but can't sustain itself dimensionally, and also, vertical against a void is not different from horizontal.
So D2 brings about the circumference, the breadth, the real horizontal.
That in turn forms the base for the sustained vertically oriented D3, which is the world of particular entities within the broad and general human world of D2. In D3 we see refinement, and the tapestry of contradictions in which philosophy and daemonism in general is unlocked,.

Quote :
The point about the deep unresolvable and inexpressible violence of spirit is well taken. Sv is having sharp edges. Being cannot speak its own violence clearly enough to understand it properly (philosophically), and may only manifest this spirit in pieces and parts as the situation requires. When two people meet, they each point their own host of knives at the other; if they come to agreements or friendship then a few of those knives on either side get pointed outward in the same direction, but the rest still remain pointed at each other. This is psycho-ontology. And peace and comfort is the tempering of the violence of spirit in ratio-nally coordinated releases (consistent and/or meaningful actions and states of mind).

This is again a very crucial observation.
And extremely useful in studying any sociological context.
This sort of modelling results in real power.

Quote :
The Will to Power is not metaphysically original, but rather derives from past agreements of many willings to powers (beings, ideas, forces, etc.), and willings to powers derive from willings and powers being brought together under the same 'roof' by sv.

Indeed. It requires a context.
The first context is simply the imanblity of nothingness to enforce itself, but it only results in a framework of will to power (a monster) under the roof of vo; namely, it needs shared standards to be able to struggle.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:45 pm

From a conversation I'm having with Parodites.


I really like the way you put it that simply denying the negative of Being and equating Being with Identity does not solve the question of meaning, nor confer an actual Identity. This seems very true, this really gets to the core problem. Extreme positivism in philosophies or Marxist ideology is different from a general slant toward positivism such as in most religions or as in common sense, what Deleuze calls Doxa, because these milder more natural positivisms do not exist to deny the negative, rather they simply build something from the ground of the negative and with certain respect to it and then focus on that built structure, in order to confer meaning and identity. Now by elevating this general human condition of trending toward a 'natural' positivism into a pure ideology and absolutely denying the existence of the negative, Leftism renders all of these older means of meaning and identity void, they do not work anymore. Christianity is a system of positivity based on deep recognition of the negative, God's death on the cross and man's unalterable condition of loss, which is why Christianity is able to operate in the Middle world between Being and Non-Being. This middle world becomes hyper-pragmatic giving rise to capitalism and market dominance due to its positioning itself in a way that takes advantage of both Being and Non-Being and of the fact of each. By refusing to devolve into strict pure ideological alignment to either end, Christianity and westernism (Enlightenment, Reformation, and Renaissance for instance) can build with bricks of reality without needing to push down imagination and dreaming hope in the process, they sustain both because of their fundamentally daemonic position that never synthesizes.

We could see the far Right as devolving into the nihilistic hope-less end of the continuum and far Left as devolving into the nihilistic hope-full end of the continuum. Thus the human world and mind are being stretched out between these two end points. A middle world becomes impossible as the daemonic nature is forced to attempt a grand synthesis either after Marx/Hegel (as you point out how Marx inverts Hegel's Geist-positivity in favor of a materialism-positivity) or after far Right Nazi race purity cultural supremacy sort of view. The far Left and far Right are nothing more than the expressions of this attempt to synthesize the daemon.

But the daemon cannot be synthesized and thus the utility of the world breaks down, with the effects of that breakdown further feeding the ideological extremes on either Left or Right. We might be able to read Nietzsche as an attempt to fortify the middle world by evolving the Christian daemonic into the Will to Power daemonic, namely finding a common quantum of shared meaning between traditional and modern Left and Right. Christian western capitalism used to be that quantum but N saw that the Christian-western-capitalist complex was breaking down, so a new middle ground is needed. Due to the impossibility of the aim of synthesizing the daemon, N's work can be interpreted as an attempt to reform and re-energize the middle space, to refuse the extremes on either end just as N refused both radical Leftism and radical Rightism. Trump therefore is a Nietzschean signifier, a manifest representation of the attempt by the Middle to assert itself (to assert utility, for one example). Thus the far Left and far Right all hate Trump because they know instinctively that he represents a rejection of their own little ideological castle of pure positivity.

The growing failure of utility and of identity-making will keep the focus turning back upon the Middle over and over again. The Left will win the machinery of capitalism just as little as will the Right win the machinery of Identity an meaning. Whether or not this Nietzschean correction that Trump represents will spiral into actual war is only a question of how large are the polar extremes of pure positivity compared to the natural middle of the daemonic negative-become-positive-building. But it is telling that both the far Left and far Right have embraced a will to power personality, I like this and think it indicates that there will not be open war; war will not be needed to form the correction, only wars of ideas, sentiments, beliefs, value-types. Identity is beyond good and evil, so is capitalism, so are the entirety of the middle world including common sense, doxa, mind, and social reality. Thus the techne and poeticism of Heidegger is just as little a means for the correction and simply another another side-effect as is the romantic supremacism of the far Right or the utopian communism of the far Left. Neither of these camps can secure the machinery of capitalism or of Identity-making.

Perhaps N wasn't aware that he was fortifying the middle world, because for him to conceive the will to power he needed to subscribe to it as truth, thus he was deeply Hegelian by nature but only in a formal sense, only as an actor who required to believe in the production in order to make the production a success; N's content-level was embedded in the daemonic negative, which is obvious to anyone who actually reads him; but as you point out with Plato, N too ends often enough in aporiatic silence, in an absence of clear resolution. N's entire philosophy is quite literally the resurgence and refortifying of the middle world, of the daemon, but only an an unconscious and archetypal level. Just as with Christianity, one is required to believe the mytho-logical (your point about the dual etymology of the term is well noted) sign-symbols and then act that belief out until the full circle of language as you also mention comes back around from belief through speech to act and again to belief; any real success of the Left or Right already indicates the establishment of the functional middle. The Middle will always be held up by unconsciously working symbols and by a functionalized ignorance.

The radical positivity of Hegel said that Geist is Totality.
The radical positivity of Marx said that Material is Totality.
The radical positivity of Nietzsche said (indirectly) that the middle world itself is Totality.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:55 pm

Thus Nietzsche is in fact a true Christian, but only because he is a Christ-like act of closing up the damaged middle world once again, so that the daemonic can reconfigure the triadic expanse of the human tectonics. Christ rejected Greco-Roman paganism and rejected the Judaic God, in order to create a new God out of the ashes of those old ones; similarly, Nietzsche rejected both Left and Right of the Christian-western-capitalist complex in order to create a new Daemonism, a new "God" of the mytho-logical middle world.

The Will to Power as Neo-Christianity.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3600
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:10 pm

We may actually be able to turn will to power into a fully-formed, new daemonic subjectivity-system that can replace Christianity, by simply mystifying the depths of the positivity element within it, as Christianity mystifies its own positivity principle in this same regard. The mystification is a nod to the hidden negative buried underneath the positive-building-ness. We could, for instance, simply say or posit Nietzsche as having said there is an irresolvable 'gap' between will and power, and that only by enacting the will to power in the world, as one's actions as well as in the world of one's own heart and mind, can this gap be approached and absolved. This would be akin to how Christ left a means of absolving the gap between man and God, through acceptance of the Christian maxims, prayer, and divine forgiveness.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1486
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:56 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
Thus Nietzsche is in fact a true Christian, but only because he is a Christ-like act of closing up the damaged middle world once again, so that the daemonic can reconfigure the triadic expanse of the human tectonics. Christ rejected Greco-Roman paganism and rejected the Judaic God, in order to create a new God out of the ashes of those old ones; similarly, Nietzsche rejected both Left and Right of the Christian-western-capitalist complex in order to create a new Daemonism, a new "God" of the mytho-logical middle world.

The Will to Power as Neo-Christianity.

Christian or Jew?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Wills to powers   

Back to top Go down
 
Wills to powers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Interpretation :: Nietzsche Campfire-
Jump to: