I just noticed I wrote "behind the screens" instead of "behind the scenes".

Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines
itself. I myself am, like Nietzsche, a cultural monist and as such, a
Uniculturalist. My Uniculturalism, however, unlike Wilders', does not seek to
preserve, but to *create* a culture---a *natural* culture, i.e., a *people* with
natural values. And this people shall be mankind:

"A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have there
been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking; there is lacking
the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.
But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is
there not also still lacking---humanity itself?"
[TSZ, Of the Thousand and One Goals.]

Compare to this speech the following:

"Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them:
thus they served life."
[ibid., Of the New Idol.]

*Nietzsche* is that creator for the people *mankind*; and he is not like Plato:

"This second kind of philosopher [really the *only* kind of philosopher---the
*actual* philosopher: see BGE 211] rarely prospers; and their situation and
danger is indeed fearful. How often they have deliberately blindfolded
themselves simply so as not to behold the narrow ledge that separates them from
a plunge into the abyss; e.g., Plato, when he convinced himself that the "good"
as *he* desired it was not the good of Plato but the "good in itself," the
eternal treasure that some man, named Plato, had chanced to discover on his
way!"
[WtP 972; cf. BGE 211.]

Nietzsche did not need to blindfold himself, for his good *was*---*most
probably!*---the "good in itself"... What, have I become a dogmatist?---No:
hence the "most probably". The will to power is not the---dogmatic---*truth*,
but the---undogmatic---*highest probability* (the German word for "truth" is
*Wahrheit*, "trueness", the word for "probability", *Wahrscheinlichkeit*,
"trueseemingness"). The will to power is the most scientific *interpretation*,
for "interpretation is itself a means of becoming master of something" (WtP
643)... All we know is *interpretation*, and the scientific method---Occam's
Razor---demands that we try to understand everything we *don't* know in the
light of what we know. Thus we arrive at the hypothesis that "this world is
interpretation, and nothing besides". And the only sensible interpretation *of
interpretation* is, in my view, as will to power.---

The will to power, then, is the undogmatic truth; and the undogmatic *good in
itself* follows from that:

"What is good?---Everything that heightens the feeling of power, the will to
power, power itself, in man."
[AC 2.]

I'm deeply indebted to Laurence Lampert (and Leo Strauss) for these insights,
and can only recommend the serious student of Nietzsche to *read Lampert!*---


--- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Trevor,
>
> Do you mean the latest topic I've started? About infinity and nothingness?
>
> I've read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention of
Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which is the leading anti-immigration party in my
country. I did not vote for it in the European elections, however. In fact, I
voted for the most pro-European party. I am, like Nietzsche, for European
unification---and as for the immigration problem, I have been having dangerous
thoughts about that lately. I suspect I should, from a philosophical point of
view, prefer Sharia law over Wilders as Prime Minister. Do you know of Wilders'
strong connections with Israel, by the way? Not that that is my reason for
rejecting him. My reason for rejecting him is that he is (or presents himself)
as the champion of native Dutch culture, or of native Western culture in
Holland, which culture he says is the result of an intense 'discussion' between
two traditions, the Jewish-Christian tradition and the Humanistic tradition. The
Nietzschean outlook, however, is of course anti-Christian (if not anti-Semitic)
and supra-Humanistic. I discern the following development in the history of
native Western culture:
>
> 1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its
military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people
*after* its military defeat);
> 2. Judaism versus Christianity;
> 3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
> 4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
> 5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.
>
> Now Wilders' position is Uniculturalism. The culture he seeks to preserve,
however, is our current liberal-democratic culture (Wilders 'deserted' from his
earlier party, the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This he
seeks to protect from the "totalitarian ideology" of Islam. However totalitarian
Islam may be, however, it does not, like Wilders, advocate a 'motality', to use
a word Moody Lawless once coined. The eminent Nietzsche interpreter *Laurence
Lampert* formulated this as follows:
>
> "[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it
was *not* an event in Christian history. Christianity's stance toward philosophy
was essentially different from that of Islam or Judaism, because Christianity
understood itself not to be fundamentally law, but to be fundamentally faith. As
such, it understood itself to be the true philosophy, the philosophy revealed by
revelation. Christianity therefore stood to philosophy in a friendly if
condescending position: philosophy as the exercise of mere reason required the
supplement of Christian truth to complete its endeavor; philosophy could begin
on its own, proceed a modest distance on its own, but never end successfully on
its own with possession of the full truth. Christianity therefore could and did
co-opt philosophy as Islam and Judaism never could. Christianity represented a
danger to philosophy very different from the mere prohibition that was the
ultimate threat of Islam or Judaism: Christianity could parade itself as the
true philosophy, the indispensable extension of the best efforts of ancient
pagans to grasp the mystery of things with unaided reason. To tyrannize
philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]"
> [Lampert, 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche', page 139-40.]
>
> In Islam and Judaism, philosophy could just go esoteric; whereas in
Christianity, it had to serve as the handmaid of religion. Wilders' position,
however, is post-Christian and with that, still Christian, all too Christian.
Humanism as a life stance has become the secular successor of Christianity.
Instead of revelation from a transcendental source, the Humanist believes in
revelation from an *immanent* source: he believes his herd morality is revealed
as the supreme and ultimate morality in (human) nature and (human) history.
>
> Wilders as Prime Minister would thus be a greater threat to the rule of
philosophy than Sharia law. Under Sharia law, philosophers can at least rule
esoterically, behind the screens so to say; whereas under Christianity or
Humanism, it is reduced to a handmaid.
>
> Back to the development I discern in Western history. This is the antithesis
(no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:
>
> 1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
> 2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
> 3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
> 4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs.
Humanism}}};
> 5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs.
{Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.
>
> I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the
latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a
new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of
Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary
to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly
intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas
in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible)
between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to
be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an
exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In
Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by
means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human)
history.)
>
> This development is a succession of liberalisations:
>
> 1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the
Assyrians extinguish);
> 2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in
order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
> 3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the
layman's need of priestly mediation);
> 4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to
attain the Good one needs Jesus);
> 5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the
belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.
>
> Muslims believe it is good if woman is in a subordinate position;
Uniculturalists like Wilders believe it is good if woman is in a position of
equality. It's obvious which view is more Nietzschean.
>
> One might say Uniculturalism ultimately harks back to natural cultures; but it
does so in the same way Judaism still harks back to Israel's days of military
prowess. We Nietzscheans should say about Wilders and his culture what Nietzsche
said about the Jews and their God:
>
> "They should have let him go."
> [The Antichrist, section 25.]
>
>
> --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams <visionsofglory14@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ollie,
> > I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea
that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I
get out of class.
> > BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you
might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."
> >
>