Will to Power

Fixed Cross wrote:

Pezer wrote:

"I claim to give the greatest and most significant fuck."

Here is a nice one. 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.

I would call that a Socialist statement. So you are right, we do disagree.

Note: "final" and "supreme" are almost antitheses. "Supreme" is simply the Best. Aristos. That means, in terms of WtP, the father of the theory and his offspring. You can't think that the WtP has any significance outside of the context wherein it was posited, i.e the lives of Friedrich Nietzsche and his friends. "Supreme" here simply means the utmost accomplishment in this context.

Given that this context has a pretty solid claim over "context" in general, in that willing to power is the act of interpreting (as "mattering", as context-creating), there isn't anything identifiable that falls outside or beyond its purview. Hence, I am fully justified in saying that my position as explicator of WtP into VO, is supreme in terms of "context" in general.

Only real old fashioned Objectivity, Idealism, the idea that things matter before they matter to someone (indeed, C) can consider itself outside of this purview. It would be wrong, but honest.

"Final" doesn't exist until all ceases to exist, until nothing matters, until hell freezes over. "Supreme" is simply a position that someone attains, some king, some clan - an advantage. And WtP is nothing, literally, if it isn't about advantage.

Advantage in which terms?
That is the real question, the question to which all failings were part of an answer, and the problem to which the term "earth molecule" seemed to me to be a valid... offering. Beginning.

The context in which will to power was posited was not Nietzsche's life or friends. It was philosophy, what the greeks started, a very concrete tradition.

Pezer wrote:

The context in which will to power was posited was not Nietzsche's life or friends. It was philosophy, what the greeks started, a very concrete tradition.

It started with Thales, ended with Socrates. Then it picked up with Nietzsche. Then came Heidegger, and I.
What happened in all this is the fulfillment of the Will to Power that posited itself as Will to Power into Power.

With VO, the quest for man to become animal and god was completed, and all that remains now is discharge. This means also: teaching. But teaching with a Kane.

You must create your own formulation of self-valuing logic, which is what I see you dabbling at here.
And this is prescribed by VO: a thinker needs to be able to value it in his own terms for it to exist to him - which means, for this thinker to really exist.

It is a pretty narrow field, is what Im saying. Not a lot of people mattered in it. Less than 10 in 2500 years.
And this is what philosopher-friendship means; a mutual "mattering" in world-historical terms.
Anything less is dust.

Pezer wrote:

I don't know... Something about your anarchist mindset and institutions and The Will To Power (the book?).

Well, I can't disagree with you there. I am difficult to understand regarding this. My anarchism is personal, not social.

I realize social anarchism cannot work. My personal behavior is to avoid institutions as much as possible. All institutions.

Nietzsche was not an anarchism, per se. But I think his views were anarchist.

To the best of my recall he never spoke negatively of other institutions.

But I still hold that "The Will To Power" is based in anarchist theory. And as I have mentioned before, for me, will to power is to have power over one's own life and does not suggest power over others as the Nazis misused it.

Pezer wrote:

Just realized I was misspelling Sysiphus. It's Sisyphus.

Hehehe. Doesn't matter. It's not my real name anyhow.

I'm working with a faulty phone battery. I'll address as much as I can.

Wop. 5% already. I'll address it all later when I've charged it.

“Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.” (BGE)

Thrasymachus wrote:

"I know my destiny.

-N

Interesting passage, that. To know one's self.

From Taoism (Chuang Tzu): He who knows he is a fool is not the biggest fool; he who knows he is confused is not in the worst confusion.

Nietzsche knew his self. He also knew that his words would stir the heart of men.

Pezer wrote:

The context in which will to power was posited was not Nietzsche's life or friends. It was philosophy, what the greeks started, a very concrete tradition.

I cannot disagree with that. However, he had the thoughts so they meant something to him.

The days of his Greeks had already passed and they were never to return. He had to have known this.

Fixed Cross wrote:

“Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.” (BGE)

I accept that thought and live by it as best I can.

will to power first means: the desire to matter. Only when one has the sense that one matters (to ones past and future self, to begin with) does the instinct to exertion truly manifest.

Nature as such is will to power and nothing besides, but mankind is not yet fully natural. To put it mildly. Mankind has to be taught or lured into having itself as a standard (morality is this ongoing attempt) before it can act, be.

The message in all this, which is remarkably difficult to get across, is that it is entirely senseless to speak of "mattering" aside from what matters to oneself. Only through proving that (certain) things matter by revealing oneself as the standard for that, is it a given that anything matters at all.

If you read Nietzsche, you see that he never once escaped into generalities. His nobility and genius is most of all in his ability to stick to particulars, which is to say, to his own will to power / self-valuing; his own tastes. "My genius is in my nostrils". His philosophy is entirely built of examples. This is why it is alive.

There is thus no "the world". There is "this world". There is only this, here, now. And in as far as we are courageous, true to the Earth, this here and now is a world. If we are not, there is only the slippery indignity of people living too close and working too senselessly, which is only the manure from which here and there a human spirit, will, being, entity emerges like some rare plant from one of Nietzsche's allegories.

So the only real meaning of philosophy is as the way in which men can use their brain and still maintain their balls.




Like what Capable quoted, awareness is self-valuing in a changing environment. So philosophy is remaining consistent in the absolutely treacherous environment of "thought".

There is, in the end, only one sound (ballsy) thought. This is what Thales was on to.

Oh no, I agree, will to power is a very specific thing. I'm just not convinced you know what that thing is. I've been trying to talk about just that, but socialism or something.

Sisyphus, I can't for the life of me tell what you are trying to say about will to power. I will say that I've always liked that attittude, of not trusting any institution. I agree such a lesson could be drawn from Nietzsche, as he leaned on not one institution to come up with what he called and I recognize as wisdom.

As for nazis, I'm not too worried. Masons have been playing that game for much longer, and are far better at it. And say what you will about them, in my heart they will allways be the motherfuckers that ended slavery.

Pezer wrote:

Oh no, I agree, will to power is a very specific thing. I'm just not convinced you know what that thing is. I've been trying to talk about just that, but socialism or something.

Im convinced I don't know what the thing is, apart from everything. I know my vision is not perfected.
This is why friends matter.
I know that the thing is, but what it should be, i.e. what I am, that is not entirely clear to me.

What I do know is that power is concentrated here, around this campfire, this kernel of philosophy that is greater than Nietzsche - this field in which I can recognize that my will isn't the only one.
And my will isn't, of course, only mine - there is Orlog both in blood and in psyche, heritage, war in ancestry. The past isn't fixed to a valuing.

Anyway. If there is not nothing, then there is this.
That is will to power, what will eternally recur.

Ok, forget what the thing is. Why does the thing, will to power, matter?

'Cause if it exists sn't matter, them who gives a shit, am I right?

If you supplant will to power with everything in your answer, I'm gonna fly to Amsterdam and slap you.

Pezer wrote:

Oh no, I agree, will to power is a very specific thing. I'm just not convinced you know what that thing is. I've been trying to talk about just that, but socialism or something.

Sisyphus, I can't for the life of me tell what you are trying to say about will to power. I will say that I've always liked that attittude, of not trusting any institution. I agree such a lesson could be drawn from Nietzsche, as he leaned on not one institution to come up with what he called and I recognize as wisdom.

As for nazis, I'm not too worried. Masons have been playing that game for much longer, and are far better at it. And say what you will about them, in my heart they will allways be the motherfuckers that ended slavery.

Well, I'm not broken hearted that I have not been able to express myself well to this. Afterall, my understandings are fusions of Nietzsche, Taoism, and my personal first hand experiences.

But then, I can't stop being active in this thread as one of the reasons, probably the most important, is that I hope to learn from y'all.

Perhaps as we spend more time in discussions here you will grasp a better understanding of why I respond in threads as I do.


Then again, I feel that if I am unable to express my understandings to others it means that I am still lacking in my ability to present my thoughts in words. So, yeah, I guess I still have work to do.

Fixed Cross wrote:

This is why friends matter.

This is the second time today this has been brought to my attention.

Yes, friends matter.

Pezer wrote:

If you supplant will to power with everything in your answer, I'm gonna fly to Amsterdam and slap you.

Hehehe. Getting a little personal now. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Reposted:




And you are right - a habitually satisfied will to power is the only true will to power. We all here know this. We aren't nihilists or paupers.
True and tried. To know what there is to be gained. To have the standard for it. To only need to uphold reality to it. To bring about a world. And as I brought about a word, I was able to meet people like Capable Parodites and you, on terms that could entertain, propel, develop. And this raises the stakes, beyond Nietzsche, into his goals. What is will to power? Go stand under the temple of Zeus and imagine the will to build that thing, and find out you barely can.

The greatest poverty is to have attained all one can imagine. That was the one risk I ran resolving Thales. But nature likes to hide in resolution. Nature likes to hide beyond the horizon A horizon of lace and silk.

Undress the world of its horizons
Lullaby to the babe of the abyss










My own will to power is most of the time satisfied. I have a good life with a rich experience of the world, and of human beings, I have had adventures and pleasures and have lived and overcome fears that most will not, and all of them are embedded in a coil, the mortal but eternal coil of the most precious minerals, which as I said is experience, my true love. Experience in the light of intelligence, this is what the Will to Power seeks to achieve. I have achieved most of what humans seek to achieve, most do it in long Wie curves where I use the straight line. But this in itself sets a new purpose.

What to do with the answer to the old question? New question.

Will to power is what simply knowledge, of a situation, the capacity to resolve it. Its not that hard, with humans, if there is something to resolve. That is the greater problem. That is what taste only can determine: whats there, here, for me to resolve? What resolution can I become? How can nature turn out well here, through my devices? True riches are never lost. Reincarnation is merely the circumferential idea of true heritage.

Any experience psychedelic user can tell you, either in glee or in cynical defeat, that there is ultimately no problem to be resolved, there is only Kingdom to be built.







For example. What is will to power? Look at your windows and see what catches your eye. Your will to power will determine the response you can have and this determines what can catch your eye. What kind of sensation of power are you able to produce? This is what determines what you will seek to see.

Seeing is an excuse for acting.







All you need to know about what I know is that when you obeyed or observed me you grew more powerful and when you did the opposite, power disintegrated.

Are you sure you don't merely ask for terms that offer shelter?
Self-Valuing is term less existence, the existence that sets terms around it.

Nihilism is a bitch.






there are a lot of top floor lofts in lower Manhattan that would ideally be filled with Capables art. I wish that in the sense building, dwelling thinking, so I can chill there. "To chill"; Dasein. Space as a materialistic conception, Wittgensteins background.
Ive seen these lofts. Damn. all the elevator shafts open, all glass, all concrete, some walls white, some unpainted, but very few walls in general, just enough to hang paintings between which one can take long walks through empty space.

Art is justified in the will to power according to its rank, which is supreme. It is what pleases the kings, what they go begging for like children happy to be allowed, to not be kings for once. So art can afford al sorts of deprivations and depravities even. And thus, does. But yeah, well. Art is cool when it is struggle. Because then it is effortless.

Art is beyond good and evil. It can't have a purpose except to play with the power of purposes.
I discovered it right too early. When I turned 16 I had to become metaphysical, poetic, infrastructural in time, because of a gift I received. Thats how being goes. But every once in a while, it goes the other way too.

Pezer, after searching my soul, I must assume you were joking.
Who the fuck pretends to be ignorant of "why power matters"?



Self-valuing logic: you need to see that as a method for structurally talking about things that matter, i.e. of issues of power. Sticking to those issues, not being distracted.

It did, I assume, occur to you that "something that matters" and "a value" are the same. I can't imagine this not occurring to people. I refuse to believe people are capable of missing this.



(fucking spellchecker changed Pezer to Peter. I may be a bit irritated but I'm not intentionally making such moves)

But really, I don't have time or will to go back again and pretend like I haven't spent the last 7 years detailing the fact that things must matter if existence is to be addressable.

I can understand the wish to simplify things, and I encourage that attitude, but Pezer you try to make it slightly too simple.
I do see the aesthetic if not therapeutic merit in only recognizing that things matter and not recognizing a self. I do see that. I do see the aesthetics. But that alone is not enough. WtP in thought is in the end no mere rhetorics, meaning that to leave out one half to be assumed, as Aristotle recommends to engage the audience, does not satisfy the art of writing as it does the art of speaking. A question mark is needed in the very least.

Such as: All I know is that things matter, but what do I matter?
Lol.

Almost.

Ok. It is true that the knowledge that things must matter, that necessity itself is that things matter, is a simple negation of nihilism. It can be argued that entity isn't important as a definition, that it is merely a derivative of things mattering. Value-anti-ontology.

It doesn't ultimately add up, but it doesn't need to be added up, it needs to be used.

Either everything matters or nothing does, as JP said of the two basic psychological possibilities we might take. Obviously the former is dealing with reality and the latter is not.