The Lust for Truth

This is a republishing of a series of posts I made years ago on another forum. Wat I then perceived in terms of "Lust for Truth" has re-arisen in my mind more abstractly as value ontology. Those who are familiar with and have an interest in value ontology may find it natural to interpret this thinking in that particular context, but no knowledge of value ontology is required to understand this -- I hope.
_______________________________________________


I

In reflection of passages 809 to 820 of the Will to Power on the artistic temperament, which I have read with gratitude (it is good to be understood by a hinker of higher rank - he understands out of richness, he understands with the bestowing virtue - he gives as he understands, he does not restrict and confine), the following in passage 819 appears to be of relevance to my lust for truth doctrine.

I will post the quote in italics.

" A sense for and delight in nuances (-the real mark of modernity), in that which is not general, runs counter to the drive that delights and excels in grasping the typical; like the Greek taste of the best period. There is an overpowering of the fullness of life in it; measure becomes master; at bottom there is that calm of the strong soul that moves slowly and feels repugnance towards what is too lively. The general rule, the law, is honored and emphasized: the exception, conversely, is set aside, the nuance obliterated. The firm, powerful, solid, the life that reposes broad and majestic and conceals it's strength - that is what pleases; i.e, that corresponds to what one thinks of oneself. "

Life corresponding to what one thinks of oneself - that is exactly what I mean by embodying truth.

Where lust becomes will;

" The rationale of life. - A relative chastity, a prudent caution on principle regarding erotic matters, even in thought, can belong to the grand rationale of life even in richly endowed and complete nature... "

In archaic / Homeric Greece, the passions still ruled unbridledly - certainly if we are to take the Iliad as a protrayal of the higest men of that time - Agamemnoon especially. Lust for itself was the motivation for will to power over others. Passion was at the root of man's conquests.
When, as a result of this, a high order was established in a ranking order of the passions of strong men in the form of a polis, and the nature of man reached a level of completeness, the passions were compromised - or, as Nietzsche calls it here, chaistized to an extent.

But the will to prudence is also a passion: a passion of an organism to itself. Athens wanted to remain itself, as it perceived itself in a way corresponding to what it thought of itself.

This will to power, yes - but in a more direct sense it is lust for truth. It is will to power over excesses and external influeces in order to retain itself - in order to prolong the state of truth.

Henceforth, it is the truth of classical Greece rather than the power of it which remains alive and tangible to us. The Romans exercised will to power rather than that they were driven by lust for truth directly- they were mere agents functioning to further manifest that which had been born in Greece; truth. The lust for truth of the world used the will to power in the form of the Romans. Although in the highest Roman nature, Caesar, the will to power equalled the lust for truth, as he himself was power, and he had a certain idea of Rome as corresponding with his own nature. He wanted Rome to become as he thought of it. In other words: He wanted Rome to become an image of himself.

As for the nature of Truth of that self-image he had - I call to mind the moment when Caesar wept at the statue of Alexander.


II.

On a more speculative note, it can be observed that the mechanism of Roman will to power under will to Greek truth backfired. Power, in Rome, became a purpose. Even when all sense of truth had been lost in the victory of Christianity over the senses, the will to power remained active. The consequences are known.

What follows, then, is that will to power can overpower lust for truth at some point, but does not result in more power! Rather in a lesser form of power. The power of the sick Caesars, the popes, was not great power, as it was not power which could give or bestow. It was not power rooted in nature - it was not truth - and hence, not power!

Therefore, it destroyed nature, and with that itself, from within. Will to power can function as an opposite force to what I postulate as the driving force of existence. There is a time when will to power must be abandoned as a consequence of lust for truth.


III.

Whereas I stand behind the entire body of the former, the latter post must be seen as undeveloped thought. Immediately after posting a new set of ideas came to me - the will to untruth as the will to a different, higher truth, as a possibility which I would need to explore in order to do justice to the function of the chruch in the lust for truth.


Proposition:

Nietzsche says that a characteristic of an organism of great health is that it squanders it's health - that it plunges itself into sickness even, in order to arise even healthier, or at least to again experience the attainment of it's great health.

The same I have already said of truth. The catholic church, christianity, could be explained as a sickness which the universe created for itself in oder to overcome it, to attain anew the truth of itself - and even greater truth!

An even greater truth - (an even greater health?) than classical Greece can hence be postulated as a necessary result of the lust for truth.


Proposition:

Truth is in war. (A clash of forces - in this moment both know what they are worth and, and since at that moment they know that they are what they know they are, they necessarily draw the ultimate consequence)

" That love which is war in its means, and at bottom the deadly hatred of the
sexes! "

The will to power is as such a means to an end. The end is the clash itself, which the universe lusts to be as great - no, as powerful as possible. Truth is thereby defined as consisting of the maximum amount of power at a given place and time.

" What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice. "

Alexander, Caesar, - these men are the truth (the light, the way, etc).
Their motivation was will to power - the motivation for this will was their lust to be themselves.

Whats the difference between lust and love? Is lust just desiring what you cannot have? What is lust?

"Lust", from "luster", means desiring so strongly as to become blind of the refined details involved.

Lust is considered a "sin"/error in judgment due to the blindness aspect.

Love is very different although can and often does include lust. Love means to "desire the continuance of", "desire the support of", "to want for the joy of another". It's only association to lust is that if the desire overwhelms the heart too much, a similar blindness occurs.

The allure of sexual lust often directly requires the motif of loving and thus persuades and tempts the heart into acceptance and the habit, thus they call it "making love".

Quote :

Quote :

Athens wanted to remain itself, as it perceived itself in a way corresponding to what it thought of itself.

But is not the self something constantly changing? what then does it mean to remain the self?

And how does one know that what they perceive them-self as is what they are? Or are we what we choose to perceive ourselves as? Is it how we choose to be perceived that defines what we are?

James S Saint wrote:

"Lust", from "luster", means desiring so strongly as to become blind of the refined details involved.

Lust is considered a "sin"/error in judgment due to the blindness aspect.

Love is very different although can and often does include lust. Love means to "desire the continuance of", "desire the support of", "to want for the joy of another". It's only association to lust is that if the desire overwhelms the heart too much, a similar blindness occurs.

The allure of sexual lust often directly requires the motif of loving and thus persuades and tempts the heart into acceptance and the habit, thus they call it "making love".

We are sort of conditioned to feel love with sex as a result of having had sex so often when in love throughout history...

Quote :

Nietzsche says that a characteristic of an organism of great health is that it squanders it's health - that it plunges itself into sickness even, in order to arise even healthier, or at least to again experience the attainment of it's great health.

The same I have already said of truth. The catholic church, christianity, could be explained as a sickness which the universe created for itself in oder to overcome it, to attain anew the truth of itself - and even greater truth!

An even greater truth - (an even greater health?) than classical Greece can hence be postulated as a necessary result of the lust for truth.

Yet why would the universe create what it needs to get over in order to get over what it is thus creating...that is paradoxical...
One might want to say that it is not the universe but the people that create their problems to prepare or strengthen against the ones that are naturally their or to come... but then which is a natural problem and which is one created to overcome those to come?

Perhaps the only problem is that we think their is one, and thus create problems to help overcome what is non existence. Thus knowledge of evil... the fruit of the forbidden fruit.

Abstract wrote:

We are sort of conditioned to feel love with sex as a result of having had sex so often when in love throughout history...

Is that what you have been conditioned to believe?

Abstract wrote:

Quote :

Athens wanted to remain itself, as it perceived itself in a way corresponding to what it thought of itself.

But is not the self something constantly changing? what then does it mean to remain the self?

This touches directly on the essential insight of value ontology. "Change" is a meaningful word only if there is something that changes. It is currently a very popular view to say that we are nothing but a process, that we end up as nothing like what we are when we were born, but is this really the case? I mean, absent altzheimer, is there not a character that you have, an accumulating memory, particular talents, a place where you were born, a mother and a father, characteristics of your body, even though it goes through phases and grows and dies , a name, a genetical makeup. Yes, what we are changes, but at the root of this is still what we are. A perspective, a continuous experience. So it can be with a nation. But this is not always as much the case as it was with Athens from 500 to 400 BC.

In the case of a nation or city state such as Athens, the constants were location, language and a shared mythology -- the poetry of Homer. That around / in a certain genetical branch of the human race, a rather strong and healthy one (Several of the great Greek poets lived to be close to a hundred, without any "modern medicin") amounts to what I would call an exceptionally strong self-valuing, in which' terms the world was valued, incorporated. We still live in the paradigm the Atheneans created around them, which they were capable of doing because of the strong unchanging component of their self, their particular nature, the character of the polis, its people and their Gods and myths.

Quote :

And how does one know that what they perceive them-self as is what they are? Or are we what we choose to perceive ourselves as? Is it how we choose to be perceived that defines what we are?

What do you mean by knowledge? Objective certainty? No, I believe that this is not possible in terms of culture and character, as neither is mathematics. But knowledge in terms of strong experience, of subjective certainty, this is possible, necessary even, in order to have culture and character at all. If a man does not know who or what he is, he is lost, and will become psychotic. The search for objective knowledge pertaining to ones own character can only lead to disintegration of the subjective perspective, which is actually the only constant that one can call "I" and that can refer to self-knowledge.

Our choice in how we perceive ourself may play, if we are conscious enough, a large part indeed. Of course this choice is conditioned by the materials we have, our body/psyche, our environment. But it is possible to self-value on different levels, to define oneself to oneself (and thereby decide, or rather influence, how others perceive us) in different ways, by different criteria. I can for example think of myself primarily in terms of my work/skills (that which I make a living with), or of my cultural heritage, or of my desires and aims -- I could also use astrology to determine what defines me -- all these choices influence how I act toward the world. In the case of Athens, a group of people knew very well the terms they defined themselves with -- primarily, the Homeric Gods.

Athens was largely created by a poet. This creation still lives on as the root of our western culture. What we call "Judaeo Christian culture" is descendent from the Greeks, of their early humanism, of their conception of the physical and intellectual human as beautiful and valuable. Christianity, the image of Jesus as man as the son of God, would not have been possible without the anthropomorphizing of God by the Athenians.

The creation of such a constant, an Image of a Self flowing out in a culture may well be the greatest creative and conscious act man has so far been capable of. Cultural relativism, the stance that 'all cultures/people(s) are equal' is directly antithetical to this, and hence, perhaps the greatest weakness man has sunken to in his existence.

James S Saint wrote:

"Lust", from "luster", means desiring so strongly as to become blind of the refined details involved.

Lust is considered a "sin"/error in judgment due to the blindness aspect.

But initially, such blindness is necessary to approach/engage the other. I am not talking here of a man engaging a woman or child he knows, but a creature engaging the unknown world.

To the aim of valuing otherness in terms of oneself, of ones own established self-value, which is the only way one can engage with the aim of incorporating/using instead of simply destroying, one must be blind to an extent to what this other(ness) is to itself. Otherwise no contact-point could be established -- contact needs to be forged, in heat of passion, forced.

Quote :

Love is very different although can and often does include lust. Love means to "desire the continuance of", "desire the support of", "to want for the joy of another". It's only association to lust is that if the desire overwhelms the heart too much, a similar blindness occurs.

Yes, love can exist entirely separate of lust, and lust can exist very well toward another object than the object of love. Lust involves what Nietzsche calls the hatred of the sexes toward each other - "love is war" only in this sense. Of course a mother or father does not lust in this way towards his newborn baby. In such a relationship there is only love in terms of care, as you describe.

Between lovers, the motives of love and lust can contradict each other. This is highly confusing, especially if one is trainedot believe that they are of the same nature.

James S Saint wrote:

Abstract wrote:

We are sort of conditioned to feel love with sex as a result of having had sex so often when in love throughout history...

Is that what you have been conditioned to believe?

It was a proposition open to discussion.

The idea that all cultures/people are equal... is perhaps true in a manner, that they are all relevant, all a apart of makes this procession of life we are in what it is. But that does not mean that they are all equal in the same way, nor does it mean that there should necessarily be avoidance of conflict when one serves to conflict the survival and happiness/peace of the whole....perhaps...

Fixed Cross wrote:

I am not talking here of a man engaging a woman or child he knows

a child... with lust? or am i miss reading this?

Fixed Cross wrote:

Yes, love can exist entirely separate of lust, and lust can exist very well toward another object than the object of love. Lust involves what Nietzsche calls the hatred of the sexes toward each other - "love is war" only in this sense. Of course a mother or father does not lust in this way towards his newborn baby. In such a relationship there is only love in terms of care, as you describe.

Between lovers, the motives of love and lust can contradict each other. This is highly confusing, especially if one is trainedot believe that they are of the same nature.

I really don't feel that I understand this concept of the hatred of the sexes toward each other...are you saying it is an underling distaste (for example) in a man for feminine interests that defines a man and thus provides the differences and thus the attraction or something?

Either way I wonder how bi-sexuality plays into this... or bi-gender mentality?

Abstract wrote:

The idea that all cultures/people are equal... is perhaps true in a manner, that they are all relevant, all a apart of makes this procession of life we are in what it is. But that does not mean that they are all equal in the same way, nor does it mean that there should necessarily be avoidance of conflict when one serves to conflict the survival and happiness/peace of the whole....perhaps...

Yes, this is what I was aiming at describing the meaning of war in the OP. Pleasure and meaning is in overcoming, and this is an ongoing process with gaps of peace in between. To try to maintain the peace at all cost is unnatural and I would even say cancerous. Cultural relativism, in the sense that all cultures should be valued equally by the 'enlightened humanist', is a disease, or leads to disease, weakness, and healthier, more 'simple' cultures will overrun peoples holding such ideals.

You are of course right that we have no choice but to see all that exists as necessary - but we can still fight that which displeases us, that which we are not able to value in terms of our proper self-valuing. This wisdom of the fight as the primary necessity and moral, over 'brotherly love' is illustrated in the Bhagavad Gita. I wonder what you think of this.

Abstract wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

I am not talking here of a man engaging a woman or child he knows

a child... with lust? or am i miss reading this?

You may have missed the word 'not'...

Abstract wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

Yes, love can exist entirely separate of lust, and lust can exist very well toward another object than the object of love. Lust involves what Nietzsche calls the hatred of the sexes toward each other - "love is war" only in this sense. Of course a mother or father does not lust in this way towards his newborn baby. In such a relationship there is only love in terms of care, as you describe.

Between lovers, the motives of love and lust can contradict each other. This is highly confusing, especially if one is trainedot believe that they are of the same nature.

I really don't feel that I understand this concept of the hatred of the sexes toward each other...are you saying it is an underling distaste (for example) in a man for feminine interests that defines a man and thus provides the differences and thus the attraction or something?

Either way I wonder how bi-sexuality plays into this... or bi-gender mentality?

Not distaste at all, but a lack of identification. "Hatred" is the term Nietzsche used, I would also say that this is misleading. But sexuality exists between opposites. Even in homosexual relationships opposite roles are assumed to arouse sexual passion. I am not claiming that this is the only way in which sexuality can exist, but it seems to be the main, primary one. "Hatred" then perhaps as a particular form of love, of appreciation without understanding, as opposed to contempt, disgust, jealousy or even indifference, which drives people to kill each other. Hatred is not actually purely negative valuing -- in order to hate someone there needs to be a kind of respect, a sensing that the object of hatred is strong.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

I am not talking here of a man engaging a woman or child he knows

a child... with lust? or am i miss reading this?

You may have missed the word 'not'...

Abstract wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

Yes, love can exist entirely separate of lust, and lust can exist very well toward another object than the object of love. Lust involves what Nietzsche calls the hatred of the sexes toward each other - "love is war" only in this sense. Of course a mother or father does not lust in this way towards his newborn baby. In such a relationship there is only love in terms of care, as you describe.

Between lovers, the motives of love and lust can contradict each other. This is highly confusing, especially if one is trainedot believe that they are of the same nature.

I really don't feel that I understand this concept of the hatred of the sexes toward each other...are you saying it is an underling distaste (for example) in a man for feminine interests that defines a man and thus provides the differences and thus the attraction or something?

Either way I wonder how bi-sexuality plays into this... or bi-gender mentality?

Not distaste at all, but a lack of identification. "Hatred" is the term Nietzsche used, I would also say that this is misleading. But sexuality exists between opposites. Even in homosexual relationships opposite roles are assumed to arouse sexual passion. I am not claiming that this is the only way in which sexuality can exist, but it seems to be the main, primary one. "Hatred" then perhaps as a particular form of love, of appreciation without understanding, as opposed to contempt, disgust, jealousy or even indifference, which drives people to kill each other. Hatred is not actually purely negative valuing -- in order to hate someone there needs to be a kind of respect, a sensing that the object of hatred is strong.

I might think of it as a person desiring to gain... and you have nothing to gain from that which is exactly like you.... but perhaps their are other things to gain then those things of the sexual differences... I am bi-sexual... and perfectly fine with being with another like me though i have roll preference i am fine with either... I think much of what i look for perhaps as a result is intellectual stimulation...

Fixed Cross wrote:

You are of course right that we have no choice but to see all that exists as necessary - but we can still fight that which displeases us, that which we are not able to value in terms of our proper self-valuing. This wisdom of the fight as the primary necessity and moral, over 'brotherly love' is illustrated in the Bhagavad Gita. I wonder what you think of this.

though i have been meaning to i have yet to read much of the Bhagavad Gita...

But it does seem to me that war is necessary at times... it is like social Darwinism... the survival of those that are capable of over powering others... and yet that is for survival... not necessarily happiness... and I believe in a union between the two.. both must be considered in moving forward on our paths.

Abstract wrote:

Whats the difference between lust and love? Is lust just desiring what you cannot have? What is lust?

Lust is based in a desire and a passion for life, for Something.
But it is not necessarily sexual.
Lust encompasses all of the inner urging for creation that a person may have.
It's a reaching out toward freedom of expression which extends in many different directions.
Lust that is sexual in nature is just a subset or a facet of that....though in a sense, the experience of passion and of being taken over by it, including that of the sex urge, has its origin in our nature as human beings - we are sexual creatures...albeit the urge may not be about satisfying one's sexual desires.
One may have a 'lust' for life - a strong urge toward something...toward completion and for those who believe in a god, it can be called divine. For those who do not, it is still divine.

There was a movie about Vincent Van Gogh called "Lust for Life". His lust for life was to create - to paint. He also wrote beautifully.

Sometimes we 'lust' after what we cannot have - and sometimes we attain what we lust after.

I think that the difference between lust and love is within the continuity of the journey we are on.
Lust or a passion for something becomes love when we view its meaning as so important, as something that is so inevitable to us - and so we must strive within our will to bring it to fruition through the act of creation, struggle and self-sacrifice. For me, lust does not become love until we have acted upon that which we seek to attain through our passion. Love is will in action toward the good, the beautiful, the harmonious and toward the 'stretching beyond' of the human soul...into ever becoming...

The transition from lust to love brings to my mind something I wrote.





" ... There are two basic forms of sickness: the one is a disorganized state of an organism, while the other is analogous to that sickness and melancholy which permeates the orders of nature, though which she gradually attains to a loftier spirituality. As is the case for the worm that has wrapped itself in a cocoon, this later sickness disorganizes the organism in accordance to the form of a new sustenance and new mode of life. In man this sickness functions as it does in nature, and prepares him for the appropriation of a new, loftier existence. Religion calls this sickness “sin” which is well enough, for it has many names. Unfortunately, this peculiar form of illness is hardly understood, and so we philosophers may hardly be said to understand ourselves, for philosophy is nothing other than this sickness, the transfiguring hunger for new and unknown fruit, the dehiscence and re-appropriation of our vitality. "