Will to Power

So first of all, to sanctify the seasons.
Every 4 of the quarters needs to be heralded with an enormous global sanctification.

Meaning to integrate nature, including sexual nature, into culture. Rather than having it as a huge shadow world that is actually bigger than the acknowledged world.

Now it is like our vitality exists on the fringes of our being. As a species, I mean.
It should be the opposite. Vitality should be at the heart, the core, the stem.
But for this man needs to be able to appreciate existence beyond good and evil.

Some of the bad parts of our world must become sanctified, in order for the truly perverted and rotten to fall off.
Some that contain great passion but no honour can be drawn in, in order that those with passion nor honour can not find shelter.
Honor without passion is not possible, as honour is only the finest form of passion. So say I, Socrates-slayer-snake, and I carry the wisdom of the Earth.

I see what will die and what will not die and I see what will suffer and what will become of sacrifice.
I see more than I love.
But love I must, and see I must, so I will to power.

Power is the law, love is the case.

ROME
no joke
I like that town.

ALEA IACTA
ROMA INVICTA

Rome is eternal, but the roads that lead to her are made of the opposite.

Fortress, dark love
Shine your moon in my depth
deep lake between steep walls
dungeon of time
divine me this
what is the meaning of politics?

Fixed Cross wrote:

So first of all, to sanctify the seasons.
Every 4 of the quarters needs to be heralded with an enormous global sanctification.

Meaning to integrate nature, including sexual nature, into culture. Rather than having it as a huge shadow world that is actually bigger than the acknowledged world.

Agree.  You said that better than I could have.

Edit to add:

And your next post too.

I enjoyed my visits to Rome too. One time I had a hard time finding a major road South out of Rome and ended up driving on the Appian Way for a short while.

Very nice Ive been walking there one time, it is a vague memory, it was a moment of doubt, I remember being a bit disturbed that this was the time I was there, but still it is one magnificent blaze, the memories of Rome together.

I remember being transfixed before the statues, heads of Roman politicians, that I think lined some Capitoline walls. I had and still have not elsewhere except in Greek art seen such shocking mastery of matter. How in the hell do you get eyebrows out of marble, in the first place, and then so as to express a ruthless face in all its complexities - I was standing there transfixed in ignorance of how in the hell people wee capable of doing that. In modern culture there is no comparison. I think this is the foundation of my admiration for Romans.

Also marble is quite "easy" to work with due to its smoothness and some of the stone in Rome seemed not marble but more a granite-like stone.
It is not the same to make a rounded figure as to make a personable one that is fair to both the destiny it needs to fulfill and the character it portrays.

So these festivals, if Sisyphus agrees to this I think we can say it is viable.
He is the down to earth voice around here, even if anarchist at heart.

Thats very cool.

How do we design that, Sisyphus. How do we start. In the US, in the South, hell, in Florida.
What perfect things.
Florida is close enough to Atlanta, which seems to me the appropriate mega-city to envelop first. Miami seems too cold.
So far Atlanta has been a bit too raw to be expressed in mainstream. Lil Wayne is what they have for mainstream.
But its music all the girls want to fuck to. We've got a - here opportunity.

Parodites proposed that the paradigm of left vs right was breaking down and being replaced by a new paradigm along two continua, globalist vs nationalist and statist vs anti-statist. I agree. And I think we should add a third continuum here: earthiness vs ivory tower elitism. I think this new continuum is important to fully capture things.

Like the other continua, there are times and contexts where we might slide more to one side or the other, based on necessity as based on the other prevailing side at the time. For example if the earthy element becomes too dominant and bends things toward a “mob rule” sort of perspective, which can indeed occur, then standards become too loose and low and a return orientation toward the balance is needed by aligning ourselves slightly more with the “ivory tower elitist” side. But typically I would align myself to the earthy side, all other things being equal. Same goes for nationalism and anti-statism, I align myself to these but also recognize that if prevailing conditions demand it I might need to slide a bit toward the globalist or statist sides.

For example, if nationalism became dominant and developed toward extremes, and if a libertarian anarchist sort of anti-statist anti-government position were strongly o the rise and controlling society to a large degree then I might need to align myself with the opposite of these, in the interest of maintaining rational order and overall balance. But obviously today the trend is toward statist globalism and had been for a long time, at least now things are starting to balance out again though. So I put myself as an earthy nationalist anti-statist, because I put myself firmly against what is presently the governing ethos of ivory tower elitist globalist statism.

These three continua work like active daemonic tensions, forming intersection points and pulling on one another. The resulting cumulative tensions are what we call “reality” in the social political sense. Whereas I seem to put myself as an agent of balance, and I do see it that way, others might reasonably adopt a stronger more immovable position to one side or another. I’m not saying there is a right and wrong way here, but obviously less statism is good and less globalism in its current form is also good. And I would also say that less ivory tower elitism is also good, generally. These accord well with my personality and with how I see things.

So I’ll be interpreting politics and politicians through these lenses from now on. Much more useful than left vs right, although that still has some relevance considering that “left” actually means something concrete, namely Marxism. But since either the left or the right can be statist and totalitarian I don’t really see much utility in that old paradigm. Basically the old paradigm exists to always have a counter space to wherever there are current abuses of power. Tyranny can always be opposed by mobilizing the other side... and we saw that with Trump’s win. But the old paradigm is too simplistic and too easily manipulated by dialectics, so I’ll be pushing this new political paradigm that Parodites laid out and to which I want to add the element of earthiness vs non-earthiness, which might be loosely construed as more authentic vs less authentic.

Fixed Cross wrote:

So these festivals, if Sisyphus agrees to this I think we can say it is viable.
He is the down to earth voice around here, even if anarchist at heart.

Thats very cool.

How do we design that, Sisyphus. How do we start. In the US, in the South, hell, in Florida.
What perfect things.
Florida is close enough to Atlanta, which seems to me the appropriate mega-city to envelop first. Miami seems too cold.
So far Atlanta has been a bit too raw to be expressed in mainstream. Lil Wayne is what they have for mainstream.
But its music all the girls want to fuck to. We've got a - here opportunity.

America has no cultural history. Rome and Greece, yes. Even France.

Our culture is based in economics. How sad is that?

Most people don't know when George Washington's birthday was because the government removed it from being a holiday for economic reasons.

You are correct, neither Miami or Atlanta could be centers of a new American culture. Need to go out somewhere in the mid-West where people are still proud to be American.

Sisyphus, you said something way back about how for a while you orientes your life towards useful-useless.

We already all play that game. The question is: to what end? More than stated or conscious intentions, you can discern those ends by what is given use.

Will to power is not something you can embrace or neglect, that some people have more than others.

Sisyphus wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

So these festivals, if Sisyphus agrees to this I think we can say it is viable.
He is the down to earth voice around here, even if anarchist at heart.

Thats very cool.

How do we design that, Sisyphus. How do we start. In the US, in the South, hell, in Florida.
What perfect things.
Florida is close enough to Atlanta, which seems to me the appropriate mega-city to envelop first. Miami seems too cold.
So far Atlanta has been a bit too raw to be expressed in mainstream. Lil Wayne is what they have for mainstream.
But its music all the girls want to fuck to. We've got a - here opportunity.

America has no cultural history.  Rome and Greece, yes.  Even France.

Our culture is based in economics.  How sad is that?

Most people don't know when George Washington's birthday was because the government removed it from being a holiday for economic reasons.

You are correct, neither Miami or Atlanta could be centers of a new American culture.  Need to go out somewhere in the mid-West where people are still proud to be American.

That’s bullshit, of course America has “cultural history” namely has many aspects of culture that together form a history over time. I’ve heard that idiotic line before, it’s just anti-American Marxist propaganda spouted by leftists. I’m surprised to see you doing that too.

Then you say only people in the Midwest are “still proud to be American”? Jesus, you’re slipping man. Get your fucking act together.

Pezer wrote:

Sisyphus, you said something way back about how for a while you orientes your life towards useful-useless.

We already all play that game. The question is: to what end? More than stated or conscious intentions, you can discern those ends by what is given use.

Will to power is not something you can embrace or neglect, that some people have more than others.

There is no “to what end” when it comes to utilitarian thinking. The entire concept of useful-useless is just the basic concept of value. Teleological and utilitarian thinking is highly poisonous, to the point of actually being destructive of philosophy. “Ends justify the means” = bullshit. Means always justify the ends, or fail to do so. This is what causality means, the ends are only an extension and derivation of the means, as effects follow from causes; to say that the ends justify the means is to entirely reverse the logic of existence.


Kant, Hegel and Marx seriously fucked this up. It is Nietzsche against KHM. That is the daemonic ruling the world right now, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

And speaking of will to power, that’s exactly what all this trans-pronouns, compelled speech laws stuff is about. It’s not about being “nice”, it’s about manifesting a direct will to power in an absolutely political and psychological sense, an attack upon language itself and by extension and more directly upon reality. The Marxist logic works exactly like this, it is a “will to power” that reverses the form of the will to power into what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness.

The entire point of the trans/speech issue is to allow anyone to undermine reality directly based only on their own whims. Oh, I’m a self-identified non binary trans person who used the pronoun zir, therefore you must also use it or you are bigoted transphobic cis gender asshole conservative white male privilege and also now a criminal under the law.... what is all this except perhaps the subtlest kind of moral attack, the subtlest kind of attack of morality that we’ve seen in recent memory? And morality is indeed a will to power as N said.

This ties back into utility. Marxist will to nothingness “will to power” type of attacks upon the very substance of language and reality, which amount in practice to vicious and unprovoked psychologically attacks upon people, are stemming from the logic of “the ends justify the means”. Marxist leftist postmodernist thought is literally built upon this kind of logic. It is raw destruction of the earth for the sake of destruction and for the sake of earth-hate.

Will to power is an impulse to war, to fight and to destroy. It connects to the excess under culture and under psyche, because such an excess instinctually organized is from where the will to power comes; but this Marxist-leftist-postmodernist strain actually orients its attack at the excess-level itself, so that the will to power is made to turn on the will to power itself. Thus the cycles keep getting shorter between vicious sudden attacks and then passive-deflated moments of weakness and “kindness”. The leftist cannot maintain his will to power, because he wills to power against his own will to power, against and in spite of his own excessive nature both culturally and psychologically. The leftist hates his own instincts. And this hate is what serves as fuel, as a small surrogate excess, for him to launch his attacks against the instincts, against the earth.

This was never about utility. Not for Nietzsche and not even for the so-called utilitarians (Marxists, in this case). Utility and a supposedly universalized platform of will to power don’t even make sense in this larger situation and context, quite literally those things aren’t even concepts. They are simply empty shadows flickering pitifully around the edges of the world. Metaphysics is fucking dead, and good riddance. Now we can return to seeing what was always there anyway, hidden under the bullshit: effects flowing naturally from causes, means justifying their own ends, and “wills to power” that are as different in type from each other that only an irreducible daemonism of self-valuing mutuality of shared interactions of interpretations could ever form a world from that. And indeed that is precisely what the world is, and this is also precisely what the leftists of all stripes are attacking, this substance of the world, its self-valuing daemonics of irreducible shared interactions of mutual interpretation. The US and Europe may yet become another USSR, if these leftists end up getting their way. If the instincts die like that then the entire process of civilization will have aborted itself and we can be certain that humanity will no longer exist. Truly this is what so many people think they want, because it is the governing logic of their actions... self-hatred rules more people than you would care to think. Self-hatred is the basic single cause of leftism, acting as a small surrogate excess of psyche so that psyche may be put to the ends of attacking and destroying itself.

"Will to power is an impulse to war, to fight and to destroy."

That's what Faust would call a TPN interpretation. Methinks.

But on to more essencial points. Useful and useless sort of imply an end. Not an end end, like the end of the line. More the directional sense. Useful, of use. I use a pencil. To be very basic.

Before you keep shitting on my takes on Nietzsche, do recall that you have often placed Kant higher then Nietzsche as a philosopher. I'm confused by your recent rhetoric. You did always have hate inside you, but it seems to now have become your focus.

For instance: what the flying fuck are terms like leftism, socialism and even Marx doing next to Nietzsche and will to power?

It's like I'm talking about petrochemical engeneering and you are answering with something about the proper use of plastic spoons.

Pezer wrote:

"Will to power is an impulse to war, to fight and to destroy."

That's what Faust would call a TPN interpretation. Methinks.

I have no idea what "TPN interpretation" means. But if you are referring to Faust from ILP, he is an idiot, so I really don't care.

Quote :

But on to more essencial points. Useful and useless sort of imply an end. Not an end end, like the end of the line. More the directional sense. Useful, of use. I use a pencil. To be very basic.

Right, and the end flows naturally from the means and as a direct extension of the means. That was my whole point, which I already made and which you ignored. This is about causality and about not falsifying the basic logic of how reality works.

So you use a pencil, that's great. Or you can use a pen, or a computer. Who the fuck cares what writing instrument you use to... write? What matters is the fucking writing, right? But you seem focused on mundane details at the expense of what is actually significant. Which is quite troubling to me, to say the least.

I mean, what the fuck happened to you, really? I am sad to see that my comments on wallowing in Christianity and Prozac seem to not have been very far off.

Quote :

Before you keep shitting on my takes on Nietzsche, do recall that you have often placed Kant higher then Nietzsche as a philosopher. I'm confused by your recent rhetoric. You did always have hate inside you, but it seems to now have become your focus.

I do not recall ever placing Kant "higher than" Nietzsche. If you think that, you probably misunderstood what I was saying. But feel free to quote something that I wrote on the subject. Obviously my views have changed a lot over the years. I am not saying that I never did that, just that I do not ever remember doing it nor can I even fathom doing such a thing. Nietzsche and Kant are not even in the same category. It is true that I went through a period of distance from Nietzsche, though, for about a year or so.  

And if you think my subjecting your views to criticism and honest, ruthless debate is "shitting on them" then I suggest you get the fuck out of BTL. Because it is only going to get harder for you from here on out. Take your... er, Christian metaphysical morals.. somewhere else, if you cannot handle real discussion.

Yeah, the whole "you did always have hate inside you", what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Are you a fucking Christian schoolgirl millennial now? "Oh like, he is so, like, full of hate!!" Dude I do not even recognize you anymore.

Quote :

For instance: what the flying fuck are terms like leftism, socialism and even Marx doing next to Nietzsche and will to power?

It's like I'm talking about petrochemical engeneering and you are answering with something about the proper use of plastic spoons.

If you cannot see the connection between leftism/socialism, Marxism and Nietzsche/the will to power, despite that I already laid out that connection quite plainly and Nietzsche himself discussed it quite a lot, in terms of his critiques of humanism, "scientific will to truth", Christian morality and the Last Man, then I don't know what to do for you.

I don't have 'hate', typically, but I do have a lot of anger at people who should be a lot more intelligent, courageous and honest than they are choosing to be. Of course in certain causes the intensity of my anger at people can indeed transfer over into something like hatred. That is quite normal and natural, and not some sort of detriment or point of criticism as you seem to think.

Implying that "having hate" is some sort of mark against or criticism of someone or of their philosophical thought... yes I see it now, you have no right whatsoever to even read Nietzsche. None. Clearly you have utterly misunderstood everything he said, and quite deliberately at that.

You act as if BTL is some shithole like ILP. Feel free to go to ILP and have fun doing your metaphysics or whatever the fuck you think it is over there.

Or you can up your game and stop being... well.  Just a thought.

Yeah man, get the fuck out of here.

Thrasymachus wrote:

That’s bullshit, of course America has “cultural history” namely has many aspects of culture that together form a history over time. I’ve heard that idiotic line before, it’s just anti-American Marxist propaganda spouted by leftists. I’m surprised to see you doing that too.

Then you say only people in the Midwest are “still proud to be American”? Jesus, you’re slipping man. Get your fucking act together.

You don't handle the truth very well. Hehehe.

America is on of the most culturally rich nations in history. This is why they are culturally producing about 90 percent of what is being globally experienced.

Some other countries also have culture. But none in the modern age can even dream of competing with the exalted nature of American culture.

Even in this wretched day and age you have a musician like Taylor Swift, who is a very pure genius who will be remembered for a very long time. Or take a show like The Shield. Tragedy doesn't get any more profound than that. But these are just entertainment artists. The moral battles the country has gone through from the beginning are, as someone close to me observed, profoundly meaningful culture. What to thin for example of Martin Luther King - was that not a cultured man? And now, even Wall Street takes a break for his celebration day. I can't think of more cultural "balls" than to honour your heroes in such powerful ways.

And Halloween, and Thanksgiving, and Memorial Day and Veterans Day and all of these specific American holidays - European nations have none of that.

Not to mention, US culture produced the miracle of Donald Trump. Who in is almost a culture unto himself, and yet only part of America.

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.

Pezer you don’t have to leave, I am just angry, because I know you are capable of much more than this.

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

Don't like the word hate? Call it ressentiment. Not at me, I've never honestly felt you feel hate against me. I don't think philosophers CAN hate me. Miss my points and call me defective, sure, or consider the things I say and the ways I say them to be beneath them, often. I also have a talent for seeing what they mean and trip with them. Instant friendships. But they take this commiseration to mean I think they are right in the way they think they are right. Instant disappointments. There is only one man who could claim I commiserated with him and, after the trip was done, I still found him to be right in the way he claimed to be right. That is Nietzsche.

But it takes iron steels-shit sorry-I mean it takes a profound familiarity with the genealogy of the lofty to understand all of Nietzsche.

Not so with the will to power. Nietzsche couldn't let the greatest philosophical obssession of all times, in fact the original philosophical obssession, to just pass him by unadressed. What is the world made of?

This is a question that is, so to speak, beyond history. No need to be familiar with the genealogy of almost anything, though the answers to the question have a deep and complex genealogy and so does the formulation of will to power, but still one needs not be familiar with it to understand will to power.

It thus seems to me the place to start, to build a true philosophical understanding between men with great intellects but who don't share genealogical make-ups.

Of course, this whole explanation sort of preempts the undertaking. Because it sets a tone of empathy and shared work. Very socratic. To come to terms with something and arrive at a common understanding would require bellum. Just... Not the petty kind.

Yes we can use the will to power in this way, to build common understandings between different philosophers/philosophies. Any significantly deep idea of ontology can do that. But Value Ontology is a much better way of doing that than is using the notion of will to power. And I still have not seen you demonstrate how you would use the will to power in this way. The will to power is not even controversial, we all know what it is and what it means. We might have some disagreements as to its accuracy or usefulness, and that is fine.

You seem to be trying to redefine what the will to power is and means, but I have not seen you actually... do that, yet.

As for "shared work" that is exactly what we have been doing here at BTL ever since we founded this place.

For example, you said "There are no -est or most in will to power. There is no final or supreme anything. That would take the point away from it as genesis. Will to power would only be a vehicle to a thing. Will to power is only a vehicle to will to power."

This is the ideological formulation of the will to power, it is pure Heidegger in its most extreme case although even Heidegger tried to make this supposed metaphysical interpretation somewhat.. earthy and real. Poetry, human-centered.  

"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 see nothing except the destruction of thinking in such "reasoning". Power, for example, is never "for its own sake" despite that it often appears like this.. you always have to look beneath the surfaces. Hence my bringing in leftism to this discussion, because there is a whole complex of motives and causes there that inform and subtly (or not so) create this particular strain of willing to power. And yes I know you want to deconstruct every individual strain of will to power, every actual real instance of it, and claim these all comes from a common metaphysically pure "will to power as such", but that simply is not the case. No amount of Deleuzian mystification can create such a thing, and even he, in his book on Nietzsche, reduced will to power less to a kind of metaphysical universal and more to a principle of natural physics, rooted implicitly within tangible physical-energetic interactions that are always an 'actual real instance'.

To say that will, or power, or will to power exist for its own sake, for itself only, is a perversion. Nietzsche was not interested in creating a new metaphysics, he was interested in destroying all metaphysics. And rightly so. Because he saw what was coming with the death of God, and he saw the kinds of ideologies that were going to attempt to fill the void. He basically predicted the entire 20th century, which again ties directly into my comments earlier on political matters and as related to the concept and discussion of the will to power.

You speak of the lofty. I am well familiar with the loftiness in Nietzsche. From what I see you are in danger of becoming another Nietzschean priest, a kind of metaphysical servant and preacher, because of how Nietzsche's thought as infected your mind and "filled voids" that are present in your mind and which, apparently, you do not want to fill yourself or are incapable of filling yourself, with philosophy or by any other means. Turning Nietzschean loftiness into a personal God so that you can act indifferent or superior to your own pathologies is a particularly anti-Nietzschean thing to do, as I believe you ought to know.

"Power" always means something specific, always has a causal history and reason for being. Sometimes that turns out to be positivistic, other times it turns out to be negativistic. Sometimes it is "good" and other times it is "bad", sometimes it is truthful and other times it is not truthful. You simply cannot reify the notion of power in absolute manner, into some sort of metaphysics, and that isn't even what Nietzsche was doing. It is simply a misunderstanding of him that this Platonic sort of view is even associated with him.

I think you should read some Husserl, check out his phenomenology and such ideas as eidetic reduction. This will be very informative for you. I'll try to dig up some of my old notes on him. I went from Husserl to Hegel, and that particular path was very informative once I was able to come to the end of it, to see through it and into its errors. Husserl is more benign than Hegel, and therefore a good place to start. But still Husserl, like Hegel, is essentially a direct reversal of reality. And indeed it is necessary that such "philosophies" would appear, for the mind must have points of resistance and distant shores with which to circumference itself, by which to delimit its own spaces and times. We are the substance that we create, we are the creating of this substance as such, this is what we call consciousness. Thought is the creating of this substance and this substance itself, for a thousand different reasons and purposes. So it can be quite useful to look into the "enemies of thought and truth", as these also do a lot to define the limits of what can be thought and known.

On the subject of war I have an observation: Iraq is starting to be a cool country. I mean it moves on its own behalf now that Trump lets it. I wonder what other counties will gain some freedom of movement.

Trump nor anyone can do shit about South American wars because these are wars over having too much of a good thing and it impeding progress. First disasters will have to be human-made so bad that nature needs to be left to her devices to restore the natural plenitude. In essence that is what is the case with all densely vegetated and sunbathed lands. Man hasnt yet developed the tools to explore that in a mighty sense. It is still too mighty, he is still overshadowed by it. Maybe thats why that fuck man is cutting down so much of it in a divine justice sense, to prevent the Superman which will live in light-ridden rainforest cities which need to be invented soon, for the rainforest to gain enough value to withstand elimination. Contradictions like contrasts in fumy days between leaves.

all value is use value when bottom lines are being drawn. and all globalism is bottom lines in the face of failures of "bridges".
There are no bridges.
Or
It is never the same bridge that crumbles.

Haha
I am great.
-Herakleitos

But that is indeed how the Presocratics talked. They were like rappers.
"Y'all btches know shit, I see the dragon"
-the first and every real lover of wisdom

"What of you with your "power". Ah, do you not see the cow? Is it not wise for being peaceful and ignorant. "
-