Will to Power

Power becomes something different when it has been attained. It becomes the will, and the will now is will to expend.
This is Ns other dialectic, the logic of expending. Akin to Parodites' excess but ethical in nature - the bestowing virtue is not implied by the will to power --- except through VO.

Byatzh
got it.

VO the ennobles the will to power theory, and therewith it allows the will to power theory to will to power.

-Eagle in the Sky
Fixed like a Star
Governing Our Tracks
Mighty Hand of Tyr
Maybe the best survive
may the rest collapse
let the waves pound the stern
as we're heading West-

that is not "everything"
Buy it is what the will to power is. It is what is left in the end. It is that which lives beyond the end. It is what comes as the End. As an axe to the chest or an uncanny friend.

-It's not wise to stand in our way but still it is your fate
for sure you'll be destroyed and tossed into the void
unless you make us bleed, unless you're Dragonseed, unless you draw the Thorn-

that is the music of the WtP

There is no such thing as “everything”. Obviously. That word is just a linguistic curiosity, a remainder, a closed logic loop at the border of what is possible to be uttered.

Dude that’s VO language through and through, those lyrics.

Also WtP yes.

VO encompasses WtP. Not the other way around.

Ok, let's see here.

"This is the ideological formulation of the will to power . . . "

Because it is empty? You don't see it actually pointing to anything? I'm trying to help you with that, but you seem to prefer fuming.

"Will to power wills will to power Why? Because that is what it is. What is power? More will to power. What is will? Willing to power. What is will to power? Will to power. "

This is a very confused thing to write. What is power? No, not more will to power.

Then something about phenomenologists... Fuck, all very confusing.

Can you bring yourself to an honest critique of will to power, rather than throwing names and labels and weird disconnected histories around?

Deleuze?

Goddamn...

I'm disciplined
Hardcore medicine
Impregnable
With no defences
Ever-present
Since they started stacking bodies in the fertile crescent

Thrasymachus wrote:

Right, well Sisyphus or Pezer can utter whatever nonsense they like elsewhere, but I’m holding a very high standard here at BTL. I’ll not tolerate blatant and deliberate idiocy, period. I’ll tolerate a lot, but never that.

Is it nonsense just because it is counter to your understanding? High standards based on who's opinion? Is it based on opinion or on supportable truths?

Is it idiocy just because it is counter to your understandings? If my or Pezer's understandings are wrong wouldn't you feel obligated to logically show us where we have errored with supportable truths? "God told me so." isn't proof.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus I expect this sort of trollish nonsensical anarchist nihilist apathy from you. But remember that we do have standards here.

I am trying to hold to your standards. But I cannot speak "your truths" because I cannot see into your mind. I must speak "my truths". If my truths are based on misunderstands then we should talk about what is perceived as "my misunderstandings", shouldn't we?

Please don't attached the words "nihilistic" or "apathetic" when defining me. Such terms are totally false.

And I think it is an error to inject the thoughts of other philosophers when speaking of nearly any Nietzschean philosophical concept. I have errored here too by injecting the thoughts of Chuang Tzu. It is obvious to me that Nietzsche never read Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu.

Yes, I have been accused of being a troll before. This isn't the first time. It mostly happens when I disagree with what someone else has said. I have never been a "Yes man." No even when I was in the Army.

I am willing to change my mind, my understanding, but there needs be a logical reason why I would do such a thing. I'm not going to put a feather in your hat just because you are having a pity party.

Thrasymachus wrote:

There is no such thing as “everything”. Obviously. That word is just a linguistic curiosity, a remainder, a closed logic loop at the border of what is possible to be uttered.

Agree. But it is still valid to say "Everything that matter to me."

Why would I need the Will to Power if nothing mattered to me?

I refuse to allow BTL to degrade into an ILP-like place. Keep it up and see what happens.

Pezer wrote:

Ok, let's see here.

"This is the ideological formulation of the will to power . . . "

Because it is empty? You don't see it actually pointing to anything? I'm trying to help you with that, but you seem to prefer fuming.

Yes, because it is empty. Glad you can figure that out on your own.  

And more about me being "angry". Lol. You know what angers me? Deliberate stupidity. Deliberately, persistently bad thinking. Attempting to use ideas for merely psychological, pathological purposes and then pretending that what one is doing is "philosophy".

Quote :

"Will to power wills will to power Why? Because that is what it is. What is power? More will to power. What is will? Willing to power. What is will to power? Will to power. "

This is a very confused thing to write. What is power? No, not more will to power.

So what is power, then? In your estimation? Why is it not more will to power? You are the one who originally wrote "Will to power is only a vehicle to will to power."

Quote :

Then something about phenomenologists... Fuck, all very confusing.

You know what is confusing? The fact I have not deleted your account yet.

Yes, very confusing indeed.

Right. Sorry for offering you an honest advice that you might like looking into Hussar's phenomenology. I take it back. I'll not waste my time offering you any honest advice anymore.

Quote :

Can you bring yourself to an honest critique of will to power, rather than throwing names and labels and weird disconnected histories around?

Yeah, that's it. We are done.

Quote :

Deleuze?

Goddamn...

What? I give you an honest reference to how another philosopher interprets Nietzsche's will to power, and I link that to the current discussion, and all you do is go "DUR UH NAME?"

Yeah, "goddamn..." indeed.

Banned for deliberate and persistent bullshit and trolling. Maybe 10 days will be enough time for you to clear the anti-depressants out of your system. Until then you can kindly fuck off. As I said, I refuse to allow this place to sink to ILP-like standards.

The only mystery Nietzsche left, about the will to power, is how it assembles. Ive show how, and thus also how it disassembles....
One has to expend in order to conquer. And imposing austerity on oneself inevitably leads to being conquered. Austerity renders a being useless, valueless, a greedy being doesn't even exist.

On the banning of Pezer - at one point a man has to protect his house. I politely ask Sisyphus to remember he is in a place that Capable/Thrasymachus created for the purpose of discussing philosophy on a certain level.

If this level is too high, then feel free to insult Capable so much as to merit banning. I think it is a radically pointless behaviour to, instead of practicing philosophy, spend your time on writing insults to your host. But to each his own.

Quote :

"Will to power wills will to power Why? Because that is what it is. What is power? More will to power. What is will? Willing to power. What is will to power? Will to power. "

I also remember this very well, so I found Capable's response more than adequate. It inspired in me the insight that VO is the key to coupling the WtP with the Bestowing Virtue, the latter of which Ive always recognized as the superior concept, even if it is this only as the supreme form of the former.

The WtP is understood only through, as, and by its highest manifestation. All other manifestations are parasitic and helplessly dangling along.

This forum is born of such heights. Anyone willing to deal with that terrifying fact is welcome.

Good lyrics by the way.

With Capable's permission Ive unbanned Pezer.

This forum doesn't have too many potential contributors due to its exorbitantly high and institutionally unverified standards, so a word master like Pezer is an asset. As is Sauwelios, provided that he, as with Pezer, exert himself maximally without being restricted by the fact that we are institutionally unverified -

We are the institution. Fresh but solidly rooted and flourishing richer every season. The first technocratic phenomenon that dares to exert itself as an absolute.

Both Pezer and Sauwelios have offered friendship in the past that is immortal in my soul, and this means I simply know them capable of being here as a worthy presence.

Friendship has replaced God. Capable agreed harshly, 'what was god anyway but the lack of true friends?' and I laugh but mean it a bit more nuanced; god did exist as a valid conjecture, the conjecture can only be followed through in this age in the form of human bloodalliance. The goal that god suggested has become real.

Look at all your metaphors, prophet-lovers.
Anyone who isn't in this for the absolute is a fool and deserves nothing and will get what he deserves. Because thats how the absolute operates.

Ive set the goals out for you, they are Earthly and tangible and rich. And they are goals begging for someone strong enough to uphold them and then sanctify them. Heidegger is a Caesar in disguise. And aren't all Caesars disguised before they enter Rome?

Attention.

I expect these posts of mine to be as much a deterrent as a ban. There is no way these goals can be attained from the "here and now".  And I don't expect many people to be capable of looking beyond the obvious and fearsome indifference of the world.



Time will tell of strength.
Not of much else.

Most people are hesitant to believe they could do what they would like to. I have already done more than I had thought possible. So I am in a different kind of situation, where I only bother with selecting goals that are beyond the normal scope of teleology.

Myth is the mind and memory of war, which is the father of all things.

Indeed, only strength really endures. I had that thought recently too. Might as well offer that as a definition of the will to power: “only strength endures”.

Only strength leaves traces.
Only strength supports itself and allows for facts.
WtP in analysis works as an ex post facto logic with the strong implication of a phenomenic knowing of the present.
VO explicates that implication. It replaces and sanctifies the ER, which is the means to concentrate the will to explicate. VO is the thought that wills its own eternal recurrence.

Strength explicates itself into value. Value thus implies strength.
To imply something is to seduce it into being. It needs to have the minerals, the structural integrities, to answer the call.

Possibility has a certain limit. Only by this limit is it possible.
The possibility of possibility - self-valuing logic.

We tumble into existence. The question of the abyss is not, what do we find there, but what do we secure there.
The abyss is the future when you're there alone. It is not knowing why one has the power to know. Sokrates made sure he never got to that point. Crowley is his opposite. Et erat Brutus. Neither possessed the tribal knowledge of the primordial, both were possessed with universals.

Earth - it is so simple and thus so primordially contested.
The game has been locked since birds created trees; All toil is wasted without a key.

Saturnus pontifex
Argentum clamat
ridet Serpens
et fugit Deus

hoc ZEUS rex maximus
et superbus magnificus
et omnipotentie sui lex

All science, with its sexy handmaiden philosophy, has been the sneaky churning before the big question that nature poses. Of us, as us, through us; how to make the will to power into a self-conscious method?
The universe exists for this alone. Or so this will might have it if it existed.

I guess the bigger question is: do we want the universe - for people millennia down the line? Sobering question. Or do we want only what can be had now? That is to abandon Nietzsche
What can be had now is a symbol for what Earth must become.
But it just be had no to be that symbol and someone has to have it.

-Therefore all of Nietzsche is an emphasis on taste.
Some goals only become apparent when one has acquired the proper way to approach such goals.
Actually I suppose that goes for all true conquest.

Don't you see it nihilism is over, the Earth is empty. There is no way to be stood in, only a globe full of meaning.
Meaning giving requires value taking. So much value has been taken from the Earth that it now has tremendous meaning. Meaning begins to beckon value back to it.
Thus to stay true to the earth means to get ahead of a curve -
some engineering is required to align this curve with perceivable axes.

Until implications are accepted, explication can't "happen".
Aphoristic reasoning, being-in-time; fragments.
And suddenly; a world.
Life is a conjuring. Because most of life is other life.

Beyond Character and the random freedoms it necessitates, free will is in stake-setting. Beyond that, life takes over and characters meet their fates. People have been trained to set very austere terms.

All goals are dead. - Clint Eastwood in his mid-twenties

Thrasymachus wrote:

I refuse to allow BTL to degrade into an ILP-like place. Keep it up and see what happens.

I am doing my best to be constructive here. We will disagree at times. It is at these time we need to talk more so that we can better understand the other's perspective.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or get banned.

If we can't talk there wouldn't be much reason for me to remain here.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I politely ask Sisyphus to remember he is in a place that Capable/Thrasymachus created for the purpose of discussing philosophy on a certain level.

If this level is too high, then feel free to insult Capable so much as to merit banning. I think it is a radically pointless behaviour to, instead of practicing philosophy, spend your time on writing insults to your host. But to each his own.

Let's consider that it was I who was first insulted. I have not given anyone permission to do that. It is unacceptable. Nietzsche told me as much.

I am still trying to find Capable's level of investigation.

Don't think that I cannot interact at any level this forum wished to interact at. That's not the point at all.

The point is that I have my understanding. I will voice them. I am always being honest in these discussions. I'm not saying I am correct. All I am saying is that I have my understandings based on my reading of Nietzsche during the mid-1980s. I have forgotten much. That is the most important reason I joined this forum. To test my remaining understandings.

I hope Capable will tell me what I said that offended him and why it offended him. If we can't talk about that he will eventually ban me because I will continue to respond on this sire according to my understandings.

Fixed Cross wrote:

With Capable's permission Ive unbanned Pezer.

This forum doesn't have too many potential contributors due to its exorbitantly high and institutionally unverified standards, so a word master like Pezer is an asset. As is Sauwelios, provided that he, as with Pezer, exert himself maximally without being restricted by the fact that we are institutionally unverified -

We are the institution. Fresh but solidly rooted and flourishing richer every season. The first technocratic phenomenon that dares to exert itself as an absolute.

Both Pezer and Sauwelios have offered friendship in the past that is immortal in my soul, and this means I simply know them capable of being here as a worthy presence.

Friendship has replaced God. Capable agreed harshly, 'what was god anyway but the lack of true friends?' and I laugh but mean it a bit more nuanced; god did exist as a valid conjecture, the conjecture can only be followed through in this age in the form of human bloodalliance. The goal that god suggested has become real.

Look at all your metaphors, prophet-lovers.
Anyone who isn't in this for the absolute is a fool and deserves nothing and will get what he deserves. Because thats how the absolute operates.

Ive set the goals out for you, they are Earthly and tangible and rich. And they are goals begging for someone strong enough to uphold them and then sanctify them. Heidegger is a Caesar in disguise. And aren't all Caesars disguised before they enter Rome?

Attention.

Yes, that's the answer Camus was looking for: Friendship has replaced god. I think Nietzsche probably knew this but couldn't say it.

I have trouble with absolutes. They are extremely rare in the field of human thought.