The Nietzschean Cauldron

Quote :

This is why the will to power must be subordinate to free will.

Free will is not an elementary super driving force of the reality, in addition to be imaginary and counter productive in the path of becoming a superior being.


In the end, a philosopher want to catch new philosophical entities, Nietzsche saw what blocked other philosophers from catching more powerful truths, a lot of things but, the missing pieces are lodged in our way of thinking of language, we act like we know exactly what is "egoism" or what is "altruism", unquestionable concepts deeply incorporated in our minds, the brain is a computer, language and reality are one in our mind, what we observe in the external world, is transformed into algorithms in our brains, if we compute with biased algorithms, we do wrong, but mystakes and regrets are the doors of a better future



Nietzsche, the philosopher with a thousand eyes …
- Sylvère Lotringer in his introduction to On Nietzsche by Georges Bataille

"A good writer possesses not only his own spirit but also the spirit of his friends"
Nietzsche

Quote :

I believe in intuitive action. That is, doing things whereby I gain nothing from the act.

You always get a certain degree of satisfaction, it might be a very thin feel, that it is almost insignificant and imperceptible but it's there, in agreement with your vision of the power.

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

This is why the will to power must be subordinate to free will.

Free will is not an elementary super driving force of the reality,

I realize that it is not for most. It is for me.

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

I believe in intuitive action. That is, doing things whereby I gain nothing from the act.

You always get a certain degree of satisfaction, it might be a very thin feel, that it is almost insignificant and imperceptible but it's there, in agreement with your vision of the power.

I can't honestly argue with you here.

"It's true that the fact that a theory can be disproved is not the least of its charms: that's precisely what attracts more sophisticated minds to it. Apparently the theory of "free will," which has been refuted hundreds of times, owes its continuing life to this very charm alone - someone or other comes along again and again and feels he's strong enough to refute it." Nietzsche

kami3 wrote:

"It's true that the fact that a theory can be disproved is not the least of its charms: that's precisely what attracts more sophisticated minds to it. Apparently the theory of "free will," which has been refuted hundreds of times, owes its continuing life to this very charm alone - someone or other comes along again and again and feels he's strong enough to refute it." Nietzsche

An my strength endures through all the chaos. For me "free will" is not a theory, it is a fact.

Ironic is that Nietzsche tells us that we must change our way of thinking then tells us that we have no free will to change our way of thinking.

Without free will one is at the mercy of the herd.

Quote :

An my strength endures through all the chaos. For me "free will" is not a theory, it is a fact.

Ironic is that Nietzsche tells us that we must change our way of thinking then tells us that we have no free will to change our way of thinking.

Without free will one is at the mercy of the herd.

Our way of thinking change itself by what we observe as powerful, like an electron change from wave to matter when we observe it, what is important is the "observation" or to use a more complete word "realization"

What Nietzsche asking, is to "observe" him, then our intellectual integrity compute his multiple interconnected truths and then we are automatically subjected to those, because you can't lie to yourself, try to think that sky is red for example, you just can't, you "believe" what you see.
i know, that "i" just observe things and my ego react in a pure instinctive way, because i know my subconscious is totaly programmed under the concept of the will to power," i" am not thinking, "it thinks".




"So far as the superstitions of the logicians are concerned, I will never tire of emphasizing over and over again a small brief fact which these superstitious types are unhappy to concede - namely, that a thought comes when "it" wants to and not when "I" wish, so that it's a falsification of the facts to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks: but that this "it" is precisely that old, celebrated "I" is, to put it mildly, only an assumption, an assertion, in no way an "immediate certainty." After all, we've already done too much with this "it thinks": this "it" already contains an interpretation of the event and is not part of the process itself. Following grammatical habits we conclude here as follows: "Thinking is an activity. To every activity belongs someone who does the action, therefore -." With something close to this same pattern, the older atomists, in addition to the "force" which created effects, also looked for that clump of matter where the force was located, out of which it worked - the atom. Stronger heads finally learned how to cope without this "remnant of earth," and perhaps one day people, including even the logicians, will also grow accustomed to cope without that little "it" (to which the honourable old "I" has reduced itself)."  ):€)

I still hold to the concept of "I". This would be a disgrace to Taoist Religion but not to Taoist Philosophy.

Nietzsche uses the word "I" in order to define from where the thoughts are coming.

And while it is true what he says about thoughts arising on their own accord, I believe that we have a little control over this process. Not much, but a little.

I would never refer to "I" as "it". "My mind" or "my brain"? Sure.

We cannot separate the mind (brain) from the body. There is no eternal soul (mind). Only the physical manifestation of a thinking organism.

Quote :

I believe that we have a little control over this process. Not much, but a little.

Well, this is a breakthrough but still, the "not much, but a little"(0.001%) contradict the will to power at 100.000%.

Quote :

Nietzsche : this "it" already contains an interpretation of the event and is not part of the process itself.

This part is phenomenal and in my argumentation, open the interconnections to all other concepts that i mentioned already.

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

I believe that we have a little control over this process. Not much, but a little.

Well,  this is a breakthrough but still, the "not much, but a little"(0.001%) contradict the will to power at 100.000%.

I don't see any contradiction. Thoughts arise spontaneously and other time thoughts are intentionally invoked when we concentrate on a concept or train of thought.

IMO having thought with intent is what the will to power is mostly about. Other times the thoughts are brought to the conscious from the subconscious.

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

Nietzsche : this "it" already contains an interpretation of the event and is not part of the process itself.

This part is phenomenal and in my argumentation, open the interconnections to all other concepts that i mentioned already.

Well, if we are talking about learned dogma I would agree. However, the "I" has free will to ignore dogma and opt for self-inspired conclusions.

I honestly can not argue with you anymore

I'm gonna say it one last time :

Language and reality are one in our mind, changing the definition/interpretation of words, will change your entire perspective of the reality, whatever the new definitions would be, the most important thing to understand is that we have this ability, don't trust "immediate certainties" the warning of Nietzsche, and create a new ways of using your "eyes", with less language and more emotions !

We can  look deeper in words like science look deeper in matter and find paradoxes, new truths and infinities but everything subjected to the will to power !

You use language like the herd, , imagine billions of people agreeing with you just because nothing looks more easy to understand than "i choose".

Quote :

Thoughts arise spontaneously and other time thoughts are intentionally invoked when we concentrate on a concept or train of thought.

On front of all those words that containing only interpretations and "immediate certainties", i am to lazy.

Quote :

the "I" has free will to ignore dogma and opt for self-inspired conclusions.

ignoring a dogma for another dogma.

self-inspired conclusioning dogma.

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

the "I" has free will to ignore dogma and opt for self-inspired conclusions.

ignoring a dogma for another dogma.

self-inspired conclusioning dogma.

The end of constructive discussion is when the messenger is attacked and the message is ignored.

I am not required to accept what you or anyone else says or has said.

What is the "will to power"? It is the free will for an individual to think as they wish regarding anything they have knowledge of. It is the will to express the demand for respect that the person deserves.

What it does not mean is that there is a need to control the thoughts of others. Hitler and his Nazis used it for that purpose.

So you call my free will dogma. How strange.

Quote :

The end of constructive discussion is when the messenger is attacked and the message is ignored.

I am not required to accept what you or anyone else says or has said.

What is the "will to power"? It is the free will for an individual to think as they wish regarding anything they have knowledge of. It is the will to express the demand for respect that the person deserves.

I'm sorry if you felt attacked, the term herd is used to signify that your thinking system is based on common interpretations of fundamental entities, we are talking about the best philosopher of all time and the most misunderstood one and you throw at me the most common arguments that you could possibly deliver...

I am not required of anything to, i felt, tiredness and disinterest in your writings, i can not put all my energy in a lost cause.

"The will to power" is the driving force of the matter itself, you separate the mind from the matter, matter does not have free will, you are made of matter at 100%...

Bringing a concept you believe in, to others, is something radical by nature, even if the concept sound noble and pure, it can damage and weaken the possibilities and most important not everybody is ready for what Nietzsche brings :

“One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. "Good" is no longer good when one's neighbor mouths it. And how should there be a "common good"! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Quote :

So you call my free will dogma

There is nothing more dogmatic on earth than "free will", you say "my" like you upgraded it lol but to use another definition of the term "dogma", everything you decide as truth become something extreme and absolute, philosophically speaking, like being humble and moderated are, from a Nietzschean point of view, extreme states, because every states reach their ultimate consequences at a given time and you want the coin to fell on the right side  !

Quote :

What it does not mean is that there is a need to control the thoughts of others. Hitler and his Nazis used it for that purpose.

There is a need of empowering, on this path,  there is blood, agonizing egos,mistakes, sadness and joy.

“[It is] useful to know the laws of nature – for that enables us to obey them.  To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against heaven.”
– Adolf Hitler

Our super rich lifestyle, like Jacque Chirac said in the end of his second mandate, is build on the back of Africa and we keep robing them as we speak...we are not better than the Nazis in 2017 and or on animal rights....

Quote :

We cannot separate the mind (brain) from the body. There is no eternal soul (mind). Only the physical manifestation of a thinking organism.

Oups ! my bad you don't seperate the mind from the matter......so i don't understand your general point of view.

Anyway agree to disagree

I was posting a response to your first post above and my work got wiped out.

I won't go through that again.

kami3 wrote:

Anyway agree to disagree

Yes, as long as we both hold firm to our present understanding there is little else to do but agree to disagree.

Perhaps one day you will understand that there can never be a will to power without free will.

Quote :

Perhaps one day you will understand that there can never be a will to power without free will.

you mean "freedom"/"human rights" ?!

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

Perhaps one day you will understand that there can never be a will to power without free will.

you mean "freedom"/"human rights" ?!

Okay. This is a very good sign what you have just done. You have asked me for clarification. We really don't need to be competing with each other. Better we just try to understand the thinking of the other.

When I speak to the concept of free will I am always ready to admit that there are limiters as to how "free" or sill is.

Many people have no free will at all because of one or more factors in their life.

Others have a great deal more freedom to express/demand their will.

I actually agree with you, the herd has no free will. Therefore I now agree with Nietzsche.

I pride myself on calling myself an Anarchist. I do not want others controlling my will. But I have limiters too. I must comply with the laws of the society in which I live. Otherwise I only make problems for myself.

And yes, this does include "freedom/human rights" for me especially but I would also like to see it for all others as well.


But really, the human animal is by nature a pack animal. Contrary it an animal like a cougar which is a loner. (The cougar is my animal spirit according to most Native American belief systems.

Quote :

Better we just try to understand the thinking of the other.

Agreed !!

So this is my vision :

The will to power is a cosmological,physical(atomical,molecular, proteinic, cellular), philosophical,neurological, psychological, phenomenon or a proteiform eternally continuous process of the reality !

This extreme conceptual absolutism make my thinking extremely hard to clarify, beside even the smartest people like Einstein and Bohr were in total disagreement, its hard for everybody :/ And i agree with Bohr, God play dices until the same combinations come back

Quote :

I actually agree with you, the herd has no free will.

No we are not on the same page at all ! Nobody have free will, only will to power, this is my vision and it's has nothing to do with the level of intelligence of someone or his position in the society, you can be the dumbest and the poorest man on earth, your driving main force, is still the will to power, what you talking about is the ability of someone to "express his will", that is a totally different than what i try to explain !

Quote :

I pride myself on calling myself an Anarchist. I do not want others controlling my will. But I have limiters too. I must comply with the laws of the society in which I live. Otherwise I only make problems for myself.

And yes, this does include "freedom/human rights" for me especially but I would also like to see it for all others as well.

This is a political point of view and not philosophical/metaphysical/scientifical one that can change the way the brain neuroplastify itself !
Everything in the entire reality is the manifestations of the will to power; the word "will" in the Nietzschean dictionary can be applied to an atom or a cell !

Well, at least we are trying to understand each other's POV.

kami3 wrote:

Quote :

Better we just try to understand the thinking of the other.

Agreed !!

So this is my vision :

The will to power is a cosmological,physical(atomical,molecular, proteinic, cellular), philosophical,neurological, psychological, phenomenon or a proteiform eternally continuous process of the reality !

This extreme conceptual absolutism make my thinking extremely hard to clarify, beside even the smartest people like Einstein and Bohr were in total disagreement, its hard for everybody :/ And i agree with Bohr, God play dices until the same combinations come back

Okay, we need to leave the gods out of this. Remember, that was the cause of Einstein's "Greatest Blunder".

Philosophy of the physical universe. This is where I am. And I can speak to only what is observable by me via my senses and thoughts.

Quote :

I actually agree with you, the herd has no free will.

No we are not on the same page at all ! Nobody have free will, only will to power, this is my vision and it's has nothing to do with the level of intelligence of someone or his position in the society, you can be the dumbest and the poorest man on earth, your driving main force, is still the will to power, what you talking about is the ability of someone to "express his will", that is a totally different than what i try to explain !

Quote :

I still don't comprehend your understanding of what is the "will to power". In fact, I don't understand Nietzsche's concept of the "will to power" without the power to will. That means I must have will, be it free or only partially free, in order to empower my will.

I pride myself on calling myself an Anarchist. I do not want others controlling my will. But I have limiters too. I must comply with the laws of the society in which I live. Otherwise I only make problems for myself.

And yes, this does include "freedom/human rights" for me especially but I would also like to see it for all others as well.

This is a political point of view and not philosophical/metaphysical/scientifical one that can change the way the brain neuroplastify itself !
Everything in the entire reality is the manifestations of the will to power; the word "will" in the Nietzschean dictionary can be applied to an atom or a cell !

No, it's not just political. It pertains to how I live my life on a personal level. Not being controlled by others is only part of it.

Quote :

And I can speak to only what is observable by me via my senses and thoughts.

Same for me, we are taught to see shadows, to see the light, your eyes need a lot of time to adapt(Plato)

Quote :

I still don't comprehend your understanding of what is the "will to power".

It took me several month before just having a clue.......it is deeply related to selfishness at the human scale.

Quote :

I must have will, be it free or only partially free, in order to empower my will.

Everything has a will, and in all things that exist, the will is directed to something, like a compass always pointing in the same direction, this direction is "power", but depending on what are the attributes of the "entity", the type of power and the quantities that it seek are variable.

If the will is "free" from seeking power, it mean that the "entity" is broken/stopped/dead and will be completely annihilated by the lack of power in a reality that select entities according to their strength, capacities to accumulate power and resistance to opposite forces.

Quote :

Not being controlled by others is only part of it

You can be controlled by many things without knowing it and still think you are absolutely "free", this is a matter of perspective.
You think to much about "others", "enemies" what about the laws of nature, do you feel "free" from them ? are you a God ?

Nietzsche :
"The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with... daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness."


If you are not free from the laws of nature, you are not free at all...it is a mathematical fact!