Before The Light
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


'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.'
 
HomeLatest imagesSearchRegisterLog in

 

 Will to Power

Go down 
5 posters
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next
AuthorMessage
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 6:46 pm

This is a 20 minute introduction talk about how to address the WtP in a way that yields real life. Pezer had a good point addressing the fact that there is yet much to say about it.



Actually I could transcribe quite a bit here, or paraphrase at least, for example that will to power is not a standalone concept, that it requires types of itself to be compared to each other which means you have to look at life to understand what it does, how it is; if the philosopher is a physician, life is the innards of WtP.

I contend that master&slave morality is what N used as a basic template of contrasting two types of WtP. Not as absolute standards but as ways of identifying difference in a way that allows for ranking, valuing.

Oh yeah that is the case. Valuing is ranking.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 7:10 pm

I think Pezer, Parodites and Sauwelios would all find some in this.
Parodites is addressed in the second half.

Sauwelios - philosophy is writing with blood, meaning that it stands in its context as on soil....
that is my Blut und Boden; write where you stand.



Last edited by Fixed Cross on Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:19 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia


Posts : 21
: 25
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 44
Location : Amsterdam

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 7:14 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
Sauw I did read the texts you posted, and I’m not surprised no one commented on them. They’re incredibly annoying to read, dry, pretentious, academic, and entirely obvious. Just kids level stuff, really. “This is that, that is this thing, this here means this over here....”

I disagree. At least that's not what they are to me, and in fact I feel the same way towards many of your posts. (Needless to say, the fact that I'm in this thread without addressing your posts doesn't mean I agree with any of your claims about Nietzsche, for example.) Of course, I may just be thick. But to me such "academic" texts may be hard to read, but doing so pays off, and thus I seem to have obtained an understanding through the years, not just of Nietzsche but of several equally important philosophers for the history of philosophy, that puts yours to shame.


Quote :
We are working on mountain tops here, forging new worlds into existence. Tldr is an annoying response to an annoying post, although I won’t tldr because that’s not how I am. I will simply respond to what has merit, whatever builds with me.

In my view, I'm working on my own mountain top, which isn't necessarily less high than yours. And as I said, I was asked to get involved or mixed up in this thread. Fixed Cross has wanted to add my "mountain" as a building block to the mountain range he's been building.

::

Fixed Cross wrote:
I think the reason why no one responded is also that the text wasn't written for this thread.

It was partly typed out and partly written especially for this thread.


Quote :
That is not a sign of great involvement, and neither is the remark that it was the only post that addressed Pezers concern.

I didn't say it was, I said it might be. It was Pezer who said none of the posts addressed his concern. As for involvement, I reluctantly joined this thread at your request (you could also have just asked me to check it out, and leave it to me to spontaneously reply to it or not), and the hook or angle I found with some difficulty was a concern I seemed to share with Pezer, about my experiences surrounding which I've already written elsewhere recently, so sharing that Nishitani text that has been of help to me seemed to me the most helpful thing I could do. As Zarathustra said, I'm not a crutch, or if that text is a crutch then maybe you guys don't need it. In the latter case I'll gladly go back to climbing my own "mountain".


Quote :
I think, by the way, Pezers concern here was simply to brawl a bit, to test. But in as far as the (illusion of) nihility of the will to power is an issue, do you really think S, that I did not address that?

The WtP is only a nihility-bringing theory if ones world is empty to begin with
this is the selecting procedure. One can not accept VO or WtP if ones world is a desert.

Perhaps my world is a (relative) desert, then. In any case, it seems to me Heidegger addresses what you found lacking in the doctrine of the will to power by trying to grapple with the Nothing that is "besides" the will to power. He suggests to me that such Nothing belongs to Dasein. Now of course(?), to Heidegger, not all beings are Daseinen, or "beings such as human being" as I think Nishitani puts it. Do you think such a world belongs to all self-valuings? Note that "world" in this sense does not mean the sum total of all the beings within one's ken--this "world" is not composed of subjects or even objects, for example--, but the (w)hole in which all those beings are, in which one be-holds all those beings. In this sense Nietzsche's world was not the will to power, but the Nothing outside (ausser) that "firm, iron magnitude of force" (N, ibid.), outside and within that iron ring. In fact, the "within" part reminds me:

"Beings-as-a-whole become strange and alienating through being wrapped [at this point there's a footnote saying: "Matowareta--literally: 'robed' or 'clothed'. This metaphor conveys a somewhat different feeling from Heidegger's talk of Nothing's being encountered 'at one with' (in eins mit) beings-as-a-whole (WM? 104). Heidegger goes on to say that in anxiety 'beings-as-a-whole become brittle (hinfällig [more literally "liable to collapse"])', a powerful image which rather suggests that the totality of beings is permeated by Nothing."] in nothing. This is the 'nothinging' [nichten, which may also be translated as "nihilating"] of Nothing, in which the true form of our self-being is revealed as 'the self individualized to itself in uncanniness [Unheimlichkeit] and thrown into Nothing'; it is 'Dasein in its uncanniness, primordially thrown being-in-the-world as not-at-home (Un-zuhause), the naked 'that' (Dass) in the nihility of the world' [SZ 276-77].
Everydayness escapes from this kind of fundamental being-in-the-world into an inauthentic way of being which conceals the basic uncanniness of our being here." (Nishitani, op.cit., page 167.)

I think it was your awareness of this uncanniness which made you ask, like Heidegger and others before you, "Why is there beings and not rather Nothing?" The only thing I found questionable about that question back then is why anyone should ask it. I guess the reason for this (consider the last thread I intentionally posted under the name of just Sauwelios on ILP) is that I was used to beings, even or especially to unusual beings or unusual behaviour of beings. Now I find Buddhism intriguingly paradoxical because it seems to have made custom of (awareness of) uncustomariness. Anyway, enough or too much for now.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 7:21 pm

Well this definitely has a nicer ring to it in these halls.
Quickly on the phrase that caught my eye as I gauged the post. I think you created a desert inside your world to purify yourself in that desert and purify much along with you. But I think that desert, "Sauwelios", has served its purpose. I don't think it is what you are living now. Empathy first for yourself. Ive never made a secret of my preference for Elaia, and Oliver, olive-tree.

Note that beautiful distinction, the desert vs the olive tree -

More to come.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 11:27 pm

I am just not able anymore to even think on such a level, as for example,


    "Transcendence constitutes selfhood' (ER 39). The idea is that one can understand one's being as a 'self' only insofar as one has gone beyond oneself and other things and come back to oneself in such a way as to experience the difference between beings and Nothing, and between oneself and others."] Or, to put it another way, in the act of transcending beings, a distinction is made between what is 'self' and what is not, on this basis the self relates itself to the beings it has transcended. This is what it means for a self to 'be'--insofar as everything it is to be a self is exhausted in relationships. It is not that there is first of all a self on one side and then a 'thing' on the other, so that the self can relate to what lies outside it. This kind of conceptualized schema has nothing to do with the self's basic mode of being. Basically, the self's mode of being is to be 'outside' from the beginning. [At this point there is a footnote saying: "Nishitani emphasizes Heidegger's 'relational' and 'non-substantial' conception of the self from the perspective of the long tradition in East Asian (Taoist and Buddhist) thought of viewing the self as a matrix of relations rather than as a substance. One of the ways in which Heidegger tries to explode the idea of an encapsulated self is by characterizing our awareness as an all-encompassing field or 'clearing' (Lichtung) rather than an 'inner' sphere of consciousness, and by emphasizing that, phenomenologically, we are 'outside' far more than 'inside' [...]. Heidegger goes on to emphasize that we are 'outside' not only in the perception of the 'external' world, but also in other cognitive activities which we are even more inclined to think of as 'internal'[.]"]The next question concerning the human being's transcendence of beings becomes: where does it go to if not to some world beyond? The horizon up to which (woraufhin) human being transcends is what Heidegger calls 'world'. This is not some pre-existent beyond, nor indeed any kind of object at all. When human being relates to beings from its situatedness in their midst, a horizon of beings-in-totality is revealed, and this horizon is the world. Thus transcendence is an understanding of beings in their totality, and this understanding is transcendence-to-world. In this transcendence, the being of beings is disclosed; and this kind of disclosure belongs essentially to human existence."



^ to me just means, "humans are social beings, we pose a limit to one another" and "let's try to, like, surpass that". Yes that is true. As for transcendence, I do not believe it has much to do with pushing the boundaries of one's "Lichtung" up against "the world" ("sum-of-all-boundaries-ness") in order to experience a kind of mystical "understanding of beings in their totality". I get what you are saying, it is just not said in a way that is very useful to my own project, and I think it risks over-developing to the point of being religious. Heidegger was definitely religious, so are so many of these analytic/metaphysics douchebags alive today.

To me, philosophy is anti-religious, because it is possible to describe reality, truth, in non-mystical and non-falsifying ways. More importantly, we do not need to use weird images and lies to do it. Religion is just the fact of language's own inadequacy before itself, before its massive and monumental future possibility and task. Religion shelters language until language can one day grow up.

Thus I am not so much interested in religious philosophers like Heidegger. I have read a lot of him, he is a decent thinker and more interesting in his writing style than the average philosopher, but that isn't saying much.

But yeah, much of what is in the texts you posted is certainly not wrong; it's just that "not being wrong" isn't so much the standard of value I apply anymore, certainly not when it comes to philosophizing. We should be philosophizing with hammers, not with bean counters.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 11:33 pm

That text is the sort of thing I would expect to read in a graduate student's mid-term. Very safe, clean, sanitized, literal, linear, non-dimensional, not risking anything, not pushing and limits but certainly talking a lot about limits and how they should be pushed.

How does that even compare to Pentad-level writing? Parodites and Fixed write circles around shit like that without even trying, one fucking sentence from one of them undoes the entire schematism and structure-logic of that text you posted by sheer power-force. By the brutality of the truth striking against the anvil of the reader's soul. And I hope some of my own writing occasionally achieves this too.

Oh yeah, and Pezer does this too, when he isn't wallowing in Christianism and Prozac.

I want to see you apply yourself in that direction too, Sauw, and not in the direction of gray-haired turtleneck-wearing pompous old farts with "ironically" bad hair who push mushy midterms on the unsuspecting minds of confused students, then go home at the end of the day actually feeling satisfied with themselves.

Yeah, mountain ranges. Let's fucking get to work.

Spine of the World.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeFri Jan 12, 2018 11:42 pm

Fuck, most of philosophy these days is pure entropy. Academia is literally entropy-as-such, entropy attempted to be "closed within itself" and turned in some kind of "socially prudent direction". Or whatever. #SJW

All I know is, every person who comes out of academia that I have ever met, as far as I know and have experienced, is structurally unable to form ideas, and has their minds uploaded with reams of bullshit, biases, fears and personality issues. Academia exists for no other reason than to turn out hordes of robots obedient to orders and unable to think for themselves but quite certain they "know it all". It is almost impossible to break through this facade and conditioning.

So you'll have to forgive me if I reject any writing obviously developed after an academic style and taste. Nothing could be more uninteresting to me than they dry, boring, pretentious, vacuous nonsense written in the dusty halls of universities by professors who just want to get tenure and score with a few coeds.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 12:11 am

Amasopher wrote:
Perhaps my world is a (relative) desert, then. In any case, it seems to me Heidegger addresses what you found lacking in the doctrine of the will to power by trying to grapple with the Nothing that is "besides" the will to power. He suggests to me that such Nothing belongs to Dasein. Now of course(?), to Heidegger, not all beings are Daseinen, or "beings such as human being" as I think Nishitani puts it. Do you think such a world belongs to all self-valuings? Note that "world" in this sense does not mean the sum total of all the beings within one's ken--this "world" is not composed of subjects or even objects, for example--, but the (w)hole in which all those beings are, in which one be-holds all those beings. In this sense Nietzsche's world was not the will to power, but the Nothing outside (ausser) that "firm, iron magnitude of force" (N, ibid.), outside and within that iron ring. In fact, the "within" part reminds me:

But as you know I don't think there is such a whole, such a world.

In so far as it exists it only exists as a function of a perspective, and is different n all instances and from all perspectives.

I think you're desert is this false World, this greater whole of which you seek to make your own will to power subservient.

Such a whole doesn't exist except when it is established. Which is what Ive been in the process of doing the groundwork for.
As did Bill on KDH.
Creating a tribe is to make possible a world.
But a tribe around what?
What is the Totem?

In any case the world is a monster because it is unsightly, it isn't to be beheld in its whole, the attempt alone distorts perspective. It isn't logical either from the self-valuing perspective on physics, which conceives a decentralized and gradual genesis, ever expanding, as space/light must logically do.

Quote :
"Beings-as-a-whole become strange and alienating through being wrapped [at this point there's a footnote saying: "Matowareta--literally: 'robed' or 'clothed'. This metaphor conveys a somewhat different feeling from Heidegger's talk of Nothing's being encountered 'at one with' (in eins mit) beings-as-a-whole (WM? 104). Heidegger goes on to say that in anxiety 'beings-as-a-whole become brittle (hinfällig [more literally "liable to collapse"])', a powerful image which rather suggests that the totality of beings is permeated by Nothing."] in nothing.

A fancy way of saying that the totality doesn't exist.
There is no measure by which to add everything up.

Quote :
This is the 'nothinging' [nichten, which may also be translated as "nihilating"] of Nothing, in which the true form of our self-being is revealed as 'the self individualized to itself in uncanniness [Unheimlichkeit] and thrown into Nothing'; it is 'Dasein in its uncanniness, primordially thrown being-in-the-world as not-at-home (Un-zuhause), the naked 'that' (Dass) in the nihility of the world' [SZ 276-77].
Everydayness escapes from this kind of fundamental being-in-the-world into an inauthentic way of being which conceals the basic uncanniness of our being here." (Nishitani, op.cit., page 167.)

An entity is never at home in a general whole, that is like a rock concert in a stadium that is supposed to be everything it is precisely not. The cold wind of non-being pervades all thoughts of this whole which is the antithesis of the genetical logic of being, which is local and decentralized and only in great concentrations begins to form into centralized structures, like solar systems, with planets on which complex hierarchies of life can exist.

All this revolves around black holes, but these are just a few parameters of being fulfilled in one instance of self-valuing cosmos, which is doubtlessly one among a near infinite array of types of being apart from the one but of these particular parameters. There is an infinite world-ness. But there is only one world that is accessible to you, or me. We can bridge our worlds to an extent and create a broader one, with more risk and more growth and more power, and this can become a standard. That is all. And that becomes tolerable only when you accept that being is only creating onward - that only the act of creation really exists. And I think that begins with the insight that destruction is the only possible first act.

Destruction of what? Of the antithesis of being; i.e. of the enemy. Namely, of the antithesis of this being.

Impartiality and philosophy don't go together, that is the privilege - the pretence - of religion. Philosophy must be wholly partial to exist. There can and shall be no whole that governs this core - if the world is to have a heart, it is exactly here and this now - because it is worth it and I have proven to have the power to establish this in no uncertain metaphysical terms. Empirically I have been steadily exploring the parameters of victory. And vanity plays no part here, I do this rather in humility, service, I don't need to lower myself but I do toil, because I know there is nothing else in this world but this philosophy of ours, the internet-philosopher culture that finally revitalized the war in the mind after 2500 years of slumber. Wotan!
Back to top Go down
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia


Posts : 21
: 25
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 44
Location : Amsterdam

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 3:24 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
^ to me just means, "humans are social beings, we pose a limit to one another" and "let's try to, like, surpass that". Yes that is true.

Is that seriously all you get from all that? I don't think he's even talking about that at all, necessarily (yes, he does speak of "others", which technically must refer to other human beings, but I think he means other beings in general); I think he's talking about something (even) (much) more fundamental.

::

Fixed Cross wrote:
But as you know I don't think there is such a whole, such a world.

Well, formerly, I by "whole" meant "the sum of all beings". I no longer do.


Quote :
In so far as it exists it only exists as a function of a perspective, and is different n all instances and from all perspectives.

Right, but how can you transcend your perspective? If you say that, in reality, only perspectival beings exist, and world or whole or Nothing or Being only exists as a function of their perspectives, you must still imagine those beings from a perspective, meaning you imagine them in a world or whole or Nothing or Being. Or at least that's as far as Value _Ontology_ goes. You may avoid this problem by pointing out that your teaching is really not an ontology but a logic; yet the Google preview of Wikipedia's entry on logic says:

"A propositional calculus or logic (also a sentential calculus) is a formal system in which formulae representing propositions can be formed by combining atomic propositions using logical connectives, and in which a system of formal proof rules establishes certain formulae as 'theorems'."

A formal system. Which means that Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply to it.

"[E]very non-trivial (interesting) formal system is either incomplete or inconsistent[.]" (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems)

This suggests that the Self-Valuing Logic of being is either incomplete or inconsistent. I suspect this notion is logic's counterpart to ontology's infinity/nothingness problem.

Quote :
I think you're desert is this false World, this greater whole of which you seek to make your own will to power subservient.

Well, I've also started to think of Nishitani's take on Heidegger in terms of solipsism. For example, Nishitani writes:

"It is being-toward-death that makes possible projection or 'world-forming' (Weltbilden, so that world may 'world' as the disclosure of the being of the self from the ground up." (page 166.)

This reminded me of a passage by Heidegger quoted by Neumann:

"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture). Existence as a whole is now understood in such a way that it only exists in the first place insofar as it is produced by man who perceives or produces it (durch den vorstellend-herstellenden Menschen) ... Wherever existence is not interpreted in this way, the world cannot become a view or picture; there cannot be a world view.'" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 3.)

Note that this is still the year of the Rooster. The previous one was the year marked for me by my "God is mad" thought-experience.


Quote :
Such a whole doesn't exist except when it is established. Which is what Ive been in the process of doing the groundwork for.
As did Bill on KDH.
Creating a tribe is to make possible a world.
But a tribe around what?
What is the Totem?

I'm reminded of Robert Graves, who called satyrs "goat-totem tribesmen" and centaurs "horse-totem tribesmen". My girlfriend would of course say that our tribe should be a cat-totem tribe, but I'd disagree. I think our tribe, my tribe, should be a man-totem tribe...


Quote :
In any case the world is a monster because it is unsightly, it isn't to be beheld in its whole, the attempt alone distorts perspective. It isn't logical either from the self-valuing perspective on physics, which conceives a decentralized and gradual genesis, ever expanding, as space/light must logically do.

Quote :
"Beings-as-a-whole become strange and alienating through being wrapped [at this point there's a footnote saying: "Matowareta--literally: 'robed' or 'clothed'. This metaphor conveys a somewhat different feeling from Heidegger's talk of Nothing's being encountered 'at one with' (in eins mit) beings-as-a-whole (WM? 104). Heidegger goes on to say that in anxiety 'beings-as-a-whole become brittle (hinfällig [more literally "liable to collapse"])', a powerful image which rather suggests that the totality of beings is permeated by Nothing."] in nothing.

A fancy way of saying that the totality doesn't exist.
There is no measure by which to add everything up.

Well, as I said above, I no longer think of the totality as the sum. I think every being is wrapped in Nothing. As for the "robed/clothed" metaphor, consider Plotinus:

"To bring this Kosmos into being, the Soul first laid aside its eternity and clothed itself with Time; this world of its fashioning it then gave over to be a servant to Time, making it at every point a thing of Time, setting all its progressions within the bournes of Time. For the Kosmos moves only in Soul--the only Space within the range of the All open to it to move in--and therefore its Movement has always been in the Time which inheres in Soul." (Enneads 3.7.11, trans. MacKenna.)


Quote :
An entity is never at home in a general whole, that is like a rock concert in a stadium that is supposed to be everything it is precisely not. The cold wind of non-being pervades all thoughts of this whole which is the antithesis of the genetical logic of being, which is local and decentralized and only in great concentrations begins to form into centralized structures, like solar systems, with planets on which complex hierarchies of life can exist.

Well, I think philosophy is precisely the drive to be at home in a general whole. Consider Strauss:

"Hitherto every great age of humanity grew out of Bodenständigkeit (rootedness in the soil). Yet the great age of classical Greece gave birth to a way of thinking which in principle endangered Bodenständigkeit from the beginning and in its ultimate contemporary consequences is about to destroy the last relics of that condition of human greatness. Heidegger's philosophy belongs to the infinitely dangerous moment when man is in a greater danger than ever before of losing his humanity and therefore--danger and salvation belonging together--philosophy can have the task of contributing toward the recovery or return of Bodenständigkeit or rather of preparing an entirely novel kind of Bodenständigkeit: a Bodenständigkeit beyond the most extreme Bodenlosigkeit, a being at home beyond the most extreme homelessness. Nay, there are reasons for thinking that according to Heidegger the world has never been in order, or thought has never been simply human. A dialogue between the most profound thinkers of the Occident and the most profound thinkers of the Orient and in particular East Asia may lead to the consummation prepared, accompanied or followed by a return of the gods. That dialogue and everything that it entails, but surely not political action of any kind, is perhaps the way. Heidegger severs the connection of the vision with politics more radically than either Marx or Nietzsche. One is inclined to say that Heidegger has learned the lesson of 1933 more thoroughly than any other man. Surely he leaves no place whatever for political philosophy." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".)


Quote :
All this revolves around black holes, but these are just a few parameters of being fulfilled in one instance of self-valuing cosmos, which is doubtlessly one among a near infinite array of types of being apart from the one but of these particular parameters. There is an infinite world-ness. But there is only one world that is accessible to you, or me. We can bridge our worlds to an extent and create a broader one, with more risk and more growth and more power, and this can become a standard. That is all. And that becomes tolerable only when you accept that being is only creating onward - that only the act of creation really exists. And I think that begins with the insight that destruction is the only possible first act.

It did strike me recently that a God's creation of a world (e.g., Vishnu's/Brahmâ's) can perhaps only be understood as a continuum with his destruction thereof (e.g., Shiva's).


Quote :
Destruction of what? Of the antithesis of being; i.e. of the enemy. Namely, of the antithesis of this being.

Impartiality and philosophy don't go together, that is the privilege - the pretence - of religion. Philosophy must be wholly partial to exist. There can and shall be no whole that governs this core - if the world is to have a heart, it is exactly here and this now - because it is worth it and I have proven to have the power to establish this in no uncertain metaphysical terms. Empirically I have been steadily exploring the parameters of victory. And vanity plays no part here, I do this rather in humility, service, I don't need to lower myself but I do toil, because I know there is nothing else in this world but this philosophy of ours, the internet-philosopher culture that finally revitalized the war in the mind after 2500 years of slumber. Wotan!

Well, I'll continue dwelling on the paradox, on "religious philosophy", for the time being. My day of birth is supposedly the day of convention!
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 12:09 pm

Heidegger is the one who speaks to my (and Nietzsches) philosophy.

Quote :
"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture). Existence as a whole is now understood in such a way that it only exists in the first place insofar as it is produced by man who perceives or produces it (durch den vorstellend-herstellenden Menschen) ... Wherever existence is not interpreted in this way, the world cannot become a view or picture; there cannot be a world view.'" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 3.)

This quotations is still in error , as Heidegger doesn't mention "world as a whole" but world-view.
Heideggersthought is of course valid, that a world-view is a view, not a world.

I am sorry to say the rest really is a form of escapism.

Logic is a method rather than a closed system. A method could with some imagination be seen as an open system.
A method produces results, it builds worlds.

The logic of power is this very power itself.


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:42 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 12:17 pm

A Mans power is his world.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 1:38 pm

The only “the world” that could be considered a complete whole is truth itself, which isn’t even a world but more like the potential idea of all ideas. Metaphysics has always been about the attempt to see and value “the whole”, to subvert everything into such an image, thus why I reject all metaphysics.

It is a joke that traditional philosophy considers Ontology a sub-branch of metaphysics.

In any case, I know from where the impulse to universalize into “the whole world” comes. This impulse is nothing more than the fact of the discrepancy between oneself and world/s, worlds that one is partially immersed in and partially outside of (unable to empower oneself in the foreign terms of). Basically, the fact that ere is no “the whole” produces, in human consciousness, the false image and idea of “the whole”. This is a thus-far necessary error, for the reason I already outlined when I said that religion is only a shelter for language until language can grow up.

Sure, necesssry thus-far, but philosophy must overcome it anyway. How to overcome a necessity? That’s easy. You just posit against it an even greater necessity.

What is an even greater necessity than the image-illusion of “the whole” as metaphysic in response to the Fact of one’s own not-whole-world-ness in relation to those worlds which one has some contact with/into? It is that self-value which contacts in this way, it is the exchanging principle as such. From this principle can be extended out limitless methods as vital systems of life, action, meaning. Of philosophizing. Those systems grow through the tectonic underworld like roots and eventually crack open the necessity of illusion.

Only problem is that you “die” when that happens. Well... I suppose that will convince most people not to complete the project. It doesn’t matter either way, whatever they do. Cling to what you are, a metaphysical error-postulate in comfort, or change into some new and terrible thing that is capable of the strength to affirm any truth without reliance upon illusions. This latter implies the destruction of language as the reorganization of linguistic fragments into a totally new format, a sort of precursor to the eventual completion of language (being) that Parodites calls the heroic daemonic.

But again, it really doesn’t matter what you do here. It only matters to you, you are that vicious circle that fights its own reckoning. Do whatever you want.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 6:01 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
The only “the world” that could be considered a complete whole is truth itself, which isn’t even a world but more like the potential idea of all ideas. Metaphysics has always been about the attempt to see and value “the whole”, to subvert everything into such an image, thus why I reject all metaphysics.

It is a joke that traditional philosophy considers Ontology a sub-branch of metaphysics.

In any case, I know from where the impulse to universalize into “the whole world” comes. This impulse is nothing more than the fact of the discrepancy between oneself and world/s, worlds that one is partially immersed in and partially outside of (unable to empower oneself in the foreign terms of). Basically, the fact that ere is no “the whole” produces, in human consciousness, the false image and idea of “the whole”. This is a thus-far necessary error, for the reason I already outlined when I said that religion is only a shelter for language until language can grow up.

Sure, necesssry thus-far, but philosophy must overcome it anyway. How to overcome a necessity? That’s easy. You just posit against it an even greater necessity.

What is an even greater necessity than the image-illusion of “the whole” as metaphysic in response to the Fact of one’s own not-whole-world-ness in relation to those worlds which one has some contact with/into? It is that self-value which contacts in this way, it is the exchanging principle as such. From this principle can be extended out limitless methods as vital systems of life, action, meaning. Of philosophizing. Those systems grow through the tectonic underworld like roots and eventually crack open the necessity of illusion.

Only problem is that you “die” when that happens. Well... I suppose that will convince most people not to complete the project. It doesn’t matter either way, whatever they do. Cling to what you are, a metaphysical error-postulate in comfort, or change into some new and terrible thing that is capable of the strength to affirm any truth without reliance upon illusions. This latter implies the destruction of language as the reorganization of linguistic fragments into a totally new format, a sort of precursor to the eventual completion of language (being) that Parodites calls the heroic daemonic.

Perfection!
Back to top Go down
Sisyphus
Path
Path



Posts : 1647
: 1649
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 7:16 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
A Mans power is his world.

A mans power is his word.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSat Jan 13, 2018 8:15 pm

Word is bond.


Will to Power - Page 8 67082020170513113653
Back to top Go down
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia


Posts : 21
: 25
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 44
Location : Amsterdam

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 3:29 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Heidegger is the one who speaks to my (and Nietzsches) philosophy.

Quote :
"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture). Existence as a whole is now understood in such a way that it only exists in the first place insofar as it is produced by man who perceives or produces it (durch den vorstellend-herstellenden Menschen) ... Wherever existence is not interpreted in this way, the world cannot become a view or picture; there cannot be a world view.'" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 3.)

This quotations is still in error , as Heidegger doesn't mention "world as a whole" but world-view.
Heideggersthought is of course valid, that a world-view is a view, not a world.

The quotation quotes Heidegger as mentioning "[e]xistence as a whole" as synonymous with "world". And he's not saying that a world-view is a view, not a world; he's saying a world-view is a world as well as a view.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 2:16 pm

See, this is why you should be quoting me. I am much more coherent and concise.
Still. Heidegger indicates the right direction, points toward the abyss and emphasizes the value of the bridge.

Anyway, Ill wait until you are ready to address my texts directly. And I won't hold my breath.

Festina lente....
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 2:47 pm

I think that accepting self-valuing logic, seeing it as necessity itself, is the criterion of being worthy of power in the Nietzschean sense. That is the sense of the Masters of the Earth.

Quote :
I write for a species of man that does not yet exist: for the
“masters of the earth.”

Religions, as consolations and relaxations, dangerous: man
believes he has a right to take his ease.

In Plato’s Theages it is written: “Each one of us would like
to be master over all men, if possible, and best of all God.” This
attitude must exist again.

This species begins with me. At least that is what Ive always known, and what Ive also fulfilled.

I do think that VO is the replacement of the ER, as in how a man is the replacement of a child. Or phrased in another way, that the ER is one of several possible "gateways" to VO; one must surely be able to affirm ones eternal recurrence to understand oneself as a self-valuing. One must be able to endure the fundamental burden as well as the boundless joy.

One must naturally, even casually know oneself entitled to the highest joys; one must accept, rather than desire, to be the envy of the world. And to be the envy is only a burden, not a joy, just like it is with ones blood being desired by leeches and mosquitos.

That is the mistake they all make, the vain ones - they think its good to be envied. That is only because they don't have anything to really envy; they don't have immortality, to begin with. Self-Valuing is immortal. Humanity is just a mortal tangent of it.

Hence
T wrote:
Only problem is that you “die” when that happens.

And you enter a kind of Walhalla. Which isn't the easiest of eternities.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 3:24 pm

We all know philosophy isnt for the feeble hearted. But even among the very brave it still takes the breath away for a few moments each time it is truly beheld. It contains both the terribleness of the abyss and the glory of the old god. It is truly beyond human.

Another metaphor: Armed with the four elements one attains to the "fifth element", the ring that binds them. How could one bind all the elements without possessing them? How could one possess the power to bind them if one doesn't have them to bind? [image]

But this is why I have been scattering seeds rather than building structures. I first need to see what will grow from this seed, before I can begin a campaign.
People ask me why I don't write books. It is because I don't write to a purpose, purposes come into being because I write. You see, such purposes are alluring but they are most likely to be attained if I follow through the effort (joy) that evoked them in the distance - that drew them from behind the horizon into the light of self-valuing.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 3:49 pm

A world-image is a indeed a world.
But it can't be "the world" precisely because it is a world.
And because the thought beyond the abyss is "of the world" (the boundless, primordial chaos of light) it is nearly impossible to forge a world from it.
It must be a very multi-faceted image, like a fast spinning diamond with a sun shining on it.
Hm. that could be the image of the bright Binah. Illuminated by the effort, joy, Sun below. The card of the lovers.

Interesting, being true to the earth, looking backward from the abyss, means first to be true to the Sun. Then to the Moon, and only then to Earth.
the meaning of the Earth is in part outside of itself.
The tides on Earth are the pullings of the Sun and the Moon. they wage war inside women and nature as a whole -
if there is one whole there are many, and to be home in a whole one will need to maintain it. Masters of the Earth. Stray true to the Earth. There is only mastery in truth.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 3:51 pm

The quest is for a true image.

First glimpse:

a lions perspective on the neck of a prey it just took its teeth out of.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 3:55 pm

[image]

rings, rings, rings
ribs and pretty numbers
forms and figures
meaning derived from the ring which is power
to hold together all that meaning
inside all that nothingness.

All that nothing.

Isn't that what we're taught to see?
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7305
: 8690
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 4:01 pm

I think you have a good instinct for the true image of power
and need to be expressing the lions perspective
but the truly world-ravishing one, which plays in the here and now.

There are many ways to get to the abyss and gather the will to cross it. But there is only one way to cross it.
Its the scary way.
Back to top Go down
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia


Posts : 21
: 25
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 44
Location : Amsterdam

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 5:07 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
See, this is why you should be quoting me. I am much more coherent and concise.

Wow. Just wow.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitimeSun Jan 14, 2018 5:44 pm

Sauw, you’re not seriously suggesting that Heidegger was a better philosopher than Fixed is?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





Will to Power - Page 8 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Will to Power   Will to Power - Page 8 Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Will to Power
Back to top 
Page 8 of 14Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next
 Similar topics
-
» A Thought on Will to Power / Power
» Men are will to power, Women are power
» Power
» Will Is Power
» Towards right apprehension of power

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