Will to Power

Sauw, welcome back.

I was just poking fun. I'll talk about that gladly.

But some other time. Talking to a pretty girl. I'll hit you all back later

Willtopower is also art.

Or rather, art is Willtopower.

Germany thrives on overpriced stuff. Like BMWs.

Who pays $800 a month for a BMW when you could pay $300 a month for a Honda that is ever more reliable and just as sporty/nice?

Yeah exactly.

Fuck teh germanz


N knew.

the anti-germania

As N promised

We are the only future the future knows.

Thrasymachus wrote:

What is Willtopower.
?

Pezer, tell me now.

Stop pulling your punches. Just speak.

Fuck, I gotta be honest man, Sawelios, tldr.

Capable. Will to power is not some poetic image or moral framework. It's not some vague allusion to whatever sounds philosophicky.

That's what I gather from our other two interlocutors. Sawelios, well, I can't be bothered. He seems to have a nice internal monologue going.

I like that you at least honestly wonder. What it actually is. Sadly I don't think I can say muchas more than I have.

What matters. You keep insisting that it has to matter to someone. Let's look at Nietzsche's take on cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. There's a reason he takes this on, he respects the attempt. But he critizies how Descartes just takes for granted I and also cogito, and even ergo. What would a succeaful attempt look like? A baby, for instance, has no knowlesge of or interest in I or ergo or cogito. But things matter. Put yourself in the position. Does it matter TO YOU? Or does it just matter?

There is something unsatisfying about something mattering but it somehow not fullfilling when it is acquired. Lacan talks about that, Zizek explains it by saying the Rolling Stones should have said you can NEVER get what you want. A little bit of an overkill, because it's not really getting it that matters, it's caring about it, that it matters. Will to power only wills will to power. But the power side, of course it's real, but it's a by-product. Alexander conquers Persia. What does he want? India. Einstein cracks relativity. Was that the point? Or did he just enjoy the mindset that allowed it? In critizising quantum theory, he didnt criticize that it didnt work, he criticized that it didn't fit with his will to power, that it couldn't be explained to a five year old.

But will to power is much more encompassing than these examples. That's why I can't just say it, it is all encompassing. It's a trip, one could say.

“Caring as such”, deeper than any “that which cares, or why”... so you’re going the route of Heidegger, but you claim also not to care for poetics...?

You’re attempting to discover a ground for a metaphysics; something N rejected entirely. H didn’t reject it, of course, but then again he was a Nazi.

Hm. Ok, I like your will to be weird. Morrison respect.


I don’t judge things based on how they sound or look. I wouldn’t find something wanting for its “poetic” or “philosophicky “ appearance. Appearances exist. So does everything else. But what MATTERS is the depths... depth for its own sake. That is the only ground of philosophy, even power is merely a symbolizing or this ground. But now that I’ve spoken it’s name, Depth For Its Own Sake, we can dispense with the mere words and symbols.

What is the meaning that cannot be spoken? You’re grasping for it, I like that. But there are two paths here: Meta-physick, or Direct Substance. Meta-physick is just the decay of language beyond language, a deliberate “dwelling-ness” that wants to be built. That wants to be thought.

Do you not see that previous attempts, except for N, have been precisely this? Human thought is merely that which wants to be thought, human building is merely that which wants to be built.

As per H. Well that’s fine and all, but none of that arrives at a ground-Depth because none of that breaks through language. H didn’t think it was possible to break through language. Most of philosophy is just the passive agreement with that.

Then N just said, “keklolz” to all that and broke language anyway. Then he started reformatting language in his own image, in the image of that which breaks language.

So which are you? Are you the broken, or the breaker?

Cause N only got it started, he left a lot of work unfinished. We are well at work helping him complete the task he started. Want to contribute to that? You’re welcome to. But you’ll have to leave the metaphysics at the door to the mental universe.

We? But you include a professed Heideggerian in that we! I agree, a lot of playing with words that guy. Not muchas else. Philosophy for vegetarians.

Anyway. Good luck with your building. I mean that sincerely. Always thought of all of us, you had the legit stuff.

Yes it is a we. Keep in mind that to actually do philosophy, to actually exist in/as depths you have to build, create shit. Every act of thought is a literal creation, you have to forge by blood and pain every single step forward that you take within the mental universe.

N took a few good steps, but this universe is literally infinite. There is so much to explore and create, which is the same thing. And anyone who stands by and does not do that dirty work of ripping insights from the spirit, is just doing metaphysical nonsense ie not even having entered the mental universe at all.

That’s all metaphysics is, wishful thinking: inability to enter truth, lack of crestingz. Create is always raw and earthy and visceral and heavy. N knew this; but the WtP became his surrogate metaphysics, tragically for him. He stopped creating and just sat around talking about it.

Most of N is the initial task of breaking down language, as it needed to be broken. Along the way he has many marvelous insights, which spring forth like atomic energy released from his fission strikes against existing metaphy-sick.

But when he starts to actually do legit creatingz... he comes up with WtP, ER, Amor Fati, which latter two he didn’t actually come up with itself and the first one, WtP, is a riff off Schopenhauer albeit an improved one.

I really wanted N to start creating. His singular achievement in true Creation was Transvaluation. But even that isn’t actually a Creation and more like a peak language-break. Well yeah he creates the last man, which is a nice derivation and expansion of the existing notion of the master/slave dialectic, but still. That’s like, 1% of 1% of an idea.

Genealogy of Morals was his first real attempt, after Z of course, and he botched it. So then he just turns back to smashing the Lego houses of history, which is nice to read for sure, AC and TI are some of his most fun and inspiring books. And I do love EH. But really, these are recapitulations. At best he talks about needing to start truly creating but doesn’t actually get very far... TI comes closest, even more so than GM because it’s better content if more of a half-attempt, less systematic.

Parodites, Fixed and I are actually creating. We are fucking making this shit from the ground up, we are Nietzsche’s fulfillment, his justice. Why not come back and do some of this with us? You are a true blade master when you really want to be.

Sitting on the sidelines talking about talking about, doesn’t suit you, man.

Amasopher wrote:

I was asked if I would join in the discussion, but I think the best I could contribute at this point is this long quote, which should at least give you guys an idea of what I'm working on:

Hi Amasopher. Thanks for joining the discussion. I read the entire post. I can't say I understood it all but you did touch on a few concepts that are of interest to me.

Yes, even the will to be a nihilist is a demonstration of the will to power although in a rather perverted manner.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Germany thrives on overpriced stuff. Like BMWs.

That's why I ended up buying a Mazda.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Fuck teh germanz


N knew.

Yeah, but we Germans who were born in America are of a different mentality. We are more agreeable with Nietzsche.

Pezer wrote:

What matters. You keep insisting that it has to matter to someone. Let's look at Nietzsche's take on cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. There's a reason he takes this on, he respects the attempt. But he critizies how Descartes just takes for granted I and also cogito, and even ergo. What would a succeaful attempt look like? A baby, for instance, has no knowlesge of or interest in I or ergo or cogito. But things matter. Put yourself in the position. Does it matter TO YOU? Or does it just matter?

There is something unsatisfying about something mattering but it somehow not fullfilling when it is acquired. Lacan talks about that, Zizek explains it by saying the Rolling Stones should have said you can NEVER get what you want. A little bit of an overkill, because it's not really getting it that matters, it's caring about it, that it matters. Will to power only wills will to power. But the power side, of course it's real, but it's a by-product. Alexander conquers Persia. What does he want? India. Einstein cracks relativity. Was that the point? Or did he just enjoy the mindset that allowed it? In critizising quantum theory, he didnt criticize that it didnt work, he criticized that it didn't fit with his will to power, that it couldn't be explained to a five year old.

You are getting close to my understanding of will to power. This question: What matters? That is two sided, of course. Dualism. Things we want and things we don't want. Creation and destruction.

There are many who believe in the existence of gods. They will do anything to maintain this belief. I do not believe in the existence of any supernatural essences. Therefore such beliefs cannot be said to be universal - they are personal.

The will to power creates the gods. But they exist only in the mind of men.

Will to power is to have control over what matters.

But this will to power is not only about physical things but our mental thoughts as well. And remember, Einstein never gave up his belief in a static universe even after he proved himself wrong.

Thrasymachus wrote:

What is the meaning that cannot be spoken? You’re grasping for it, I like that.

Cute.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Grasped for, it has no physical essence.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Cause N only got it started, he left a lot of work unfinished. We are well at work helping him complete the task he started. Want to contribute to that? You’re welcome to. But you’ll have to leave the metaphysics at the door to the mental universe.

That was Albert Camus' complaint as well. Camus tried to continue Nietzsche's work but he died too soon. I guess it's up to you now.

Thrasymachus wrote:

That’s all metaphysics is, wishful thinking: inability to enter truth, lack of crestingz. Create is always raw and earthy and visceral and heavy. N knew this; but the WtP became his surrogate metaphysics, tragically for him. He stopped creating and just sat around talking about it.

Let's not be too harsh on Nietzsche in this regard. He was in very poor health during his latter years and was unable to continue with his thought patterns.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Most of N is the initial task of breaking down language, as it needed to be broken.

Walter Kaufmann (the only translator of Nietzsche I fully trust without question) even stated that Nietzsche often created his own German words in order to express a thought.

Pezer wrote:

A baby, for instance, has no knowlesge of or interest in I or ergo or cogito. But things matter.

Which baby?
Cogito ergo baby?

Decartations, Descartations.
I taught you all this.

I showed you that "I think therefore I am" is identical to "I eat therefore I am" or "I say that I am therefore I am".
Now, we get "baby cries therefore baby is" and "baby hurts therefore baby is", and "I care for baby therefore I am" and "I care for baby therefore baby matters" "baby matters therefore I am" "baby matters therefore baby is" "I care for baby therefore baby and me are".

The careless one doesn't think to examine what this "caring" is. He gets stuck on the nouns and pronouns.
I had hoped not ever to have to cover these basics again.

But fuck it. Our book is out.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/pentad/trump-the-achievement-of-reality-in-politics-part-1/paperback/product-23471502.html
Capable, we just received two copies. Fucking magnificent.