in group preference

it’s not meta or useless, it’s how we think, how consciousness is organized and functions. this is basically the structure of thought, namely the structure of truth itself. thought is just a very condensed very self-limited and self-referential instantistion of this exact same kind of fractalizing logic, in the cases of human brains it is that fractaizing logic being used to fill in a neurological system with facts, to imprint and reconfigure that neurological system’s networks in such a way so that when impulse stimuli are fed into those networks the networks return an output response and action that is in accord with those same facts that were behind the things that did the actual imprinting.

ok i don’t have any coffee and i need a smoke, lemme go down to the corner for coffee and come back so i can sit outside and drink and smoke and process this.

The whole point of will to power is that it is the point where asking more questions is sterile. Will to power is everything. Ok, so what? What now? Well, everything. It doesn't explain anything, it only suggests a hierarchy.

When asking what is everything or where does everything come from, most have ansewerd God or some substance or consciousness isself or a principle (how every or anything can come from a principle... fucking Plate). These all suggest hierarchies, optimal ways of thinking in consequence. They suggest much to be destroyed that is not condusive.

Will to power eliminates all those and doesn't fill the remaining space. There is no ultimate anything because anyway, it is not even power that is willed.

There is no ultimate nothin, only everything.

The beauty is that even all those ultimates are true because they are will to power.

But if one becomes aware of will to power, one loses interest in many things that are true. Because the game becomes: what will lead to will to power that will lead to even more will to power ad infinitum. And only admitting that it is will to power will allow sanity in such never ending progressionness.

"What do you want son?"

"Everything! Never ending flow of unimaginably satisfying wealth!"

"Here you go son. It's czzalled will to power. Don't freak out, it's better than you could have ever hoped."

quickly and keeping this in this topic for consistency purposes and so i can organize things later, people who have little confidence in themselves and in their abilities prefer to shake things up in a higher stage of randomness and unpredictability because they are acting on the logic that is statistically at least as likely if not more likely that the random throw of the dice in any given situation is going to produce an outcome at least the same if not better than the outcome that would have been produced has they not just let the dice roll and instead had exercised deliberation and decision making to set the outcome according to their own judgment and capacity for understanding the situation and acting best according to it.

ok, now let me read what u said.

yes! you gave your definition and understanding of wtp, thank you.

ok first of all very nice definition and understanding. the point at which asking why becomes meaningless or self-defeating or doesn’t add to willing to power, and the fact that “all is will to power” can only be rescued from madness by seeing that “all is will to power”.

i like this.

let me drink my coffee, inhale some tobacco and think about this for a few minutes.

I'm one of the only ones (the only one?) who desn't want the world to end and move on to some imaginary more satisfying stage. Leibniz was close, but he still used imaginary god that doesn't exist. I don't need stand-ins.

I broke on through. Through the bullshit, that is.

asking “why” is what thought is, so putting limits around asking why in the way you mention the wtp is or means is placing a limit around thought, around consciousness. a kantian limit except that obviously this is much better than kant.

i can accept that wtp is such a limit, i see this. but i don’t endorse the limit without stipulations. one stipulation is that the limit is necesssry and useful but this alone doesn’t mean the limit is not something to be overcome or a kind of error embedded into existence as a consequence of the kind of nature limitations and finitudes to which existing things are subject. thought itself is a kind of expression of the overcoming of such limitations and in such a way where the overcoming of limitations as such has become a substance entirely operating in accord with its own logic, following its own maxim and law. a pure excess; if thought were not this then thought could not exist.

if wtp is used to identify the kind of limits you mention then that is good, but if wtp is used to concede to any such individual limits or to concede to the fact of this kind of limitation as such then this is not good. and you can see that immediately we are thrust beyond the scope of the limit just by realizing that it exists. so concession is impossible. which you also identified because you already have a solution for this, namely to accept that all such overcomingness is itself just more of the same thing, more wtp. so wtp is the limit and is also the impossibility of conceding to the limit; it is the limit and it’s own overcoming in the most literal and direct, tangible and lived sense.

but now we have to show how and why these two are the same. we can use the same term to describe them but are the the same thing? the inability to or detrimentalness of thinking when that thinking is useless or detrimental or suppressive of wtp, and the inability to or detrimentalness of accepting that limitation and conceding to it or of not constantly trying to surpass it.

right so u don’t want the world to change or improve, that is a pressure release valve. or like pulling back a main gear from contact with other gears, so the engine doesn’t need to keep working in overdrive. that’s not really entropic although the form of it can be seen as entropic. your wtp idea seems like a manifested eternal return, that is very cool.

for me, thought is the overcomingness-as-such of limitation-as-such, an overcomingness that can only root itself in truth itself and can only find its lived and living form in truth-as-such. and then also for me, all of existence that is outside of or prior to thought is a negative reflection and shadow of this, a kind of preformative seed stuck in time.

so at least we understand each other now.

motherfuck, you just made kant your bitch. haha. vn

i don’t think humans discovered evolution and dna and astronomy and gravity and mathematics and philosophy and the wheel and everything else because that discovering was a willing to power or was an expression of will to power, i think humans did all that discovering because we are oriented to and as truth-as-such as the overcomingness-as-such of limitation-as-such. and as nietzsche points out often we discover and use things that destroy us, and even this is an expression of will to power because we are the willing to power itself more than we are the application or careful use of willing to power in such a way as might necessarily not ensure or less to our own destruction.

but that can also be explained in terms of my philosophy, as i outlined above as the being oriented to and as truth-as-such as the overcomingness-as-such of limitation-as-such. i think this is the case that we are this not because all is will to power but because all is a truth process, an excess that has no choice but to forever seek its higher integration with/in the ever-expanding field of data that it is and has exposure to. the more a being can encount and absorb into and as itself more data, more experiences and more information about experiences then also the more this being will embody as pure form this overlying truth process, and also therefore also the more that the contents of this being will be remade in the images of reality itself. beings come into existence and exist more and more to the degree they are this and do this. and it’s an exponential curve which is why it took 100,000 years to go from no wheel to inventing the wheel and only 70 or so years to go from inventing flight to landing on the moon.

if it took 3000 generations to invent the wheel then it took 3 generations to invent landing on the moon, more or less. a thousandfold increase in the reduction of time it took. obviously not a perfect analogy but also obviously exampling the exponential curve of discovery.

i think my theory better explains why this is the case, than does your theory, but you’re is good too and we can agree to hold to our own positions. for what it’s worth i like your understanding of wtp.

so obviously i know it will and i want the world to keep changing and improving, it can not do otherwise. but it is entirely possible that at some point the world will be faced with the need to grasp certain truths that take too long for it to grasp, too long because other truths will prove to work themselves out destructively within the world before it has time to grasp those other truths that took too long and would have, if grasped, prevented the destruction, so that now being destroyed in this way the world loses its capacity for working toward grasping those other truths that it had formerly been struggling for.

that’s where i think the world is right now, poised on this edge. a nietzschean cliff. wtp explains this but only because it also appeals to intuitively and makes intuitive use of the kind of theory that i’m explaining here with my own view. but wtp can remain unconcerned about the fall from the cliff, because of the closed circle of the lived eternal return that you example, whereas my philosophy cannot remain unconcerned with it, because i don’t have the means to discharge myself of those excesses and pressures of certain let’s say uncomfortable truths.

ok so laying all possible understandings of wtp on the table.


-impulse to increase, growth, expansion, or
-the self-irreconcilably and self-irreducibility of being, or
-a consequence or result of naturally selective logic, or
-the limit of thinking or acting where thinking or acting would prove useless or detrimental to itself or to increasing wtp, and,
-the inability to concede to that limit, and
-the fact that that limit and the inability to concede to it are one and the same thing

Your exposition of the mechanics of it is correct.

The thing to understand about will to power is that it sets no limits. It may find them, ere never set them.

It does suggest a direction. And once this direction is taken, will to power is inmediately overcome and become useless and obsolete, a quaint antiquity except nobody would bother to look at it long enough to call it a quaint antiquity.

So for you, what is the directjon it suggests? Same as anyone. That better work than what makes you passionate does not and cannot exist. To chase it would only decrease your ability to pursue your work.

It is will to power that leads you to arrive at all your conclusions and explains why you cannot imagine an end to the work.

What does will to power say? Rejoice! Do what you want, what you really want, and nothing else, and the reward will be greater than anything you ever hoped as the result of anything.

Indeed it is will to power that says: accept no limits. Specially not me!

it’s for
it’s for the betterment of hip hop

Lol!

I'm in.

My nature is to now go into a praiseful rant.

But um. I'm ready. And I think the world is ready.

In the sense that of course neither of us are. So, you know,

fkn rite