Hello there. I had attempted to pick up on this topic at another group.
I dont have time to go into it now, but the similiarites might be of
interest, so i will snip a bit of the conversation. You may pick up on
some of the threads and we can go from there. ::

As i see it the man of knowledge gathers up his morality in a way that
each of the values that they hold are the most practical for him, or for
the service of man. The means to a higher morality is by accumilating
knowledge, exercising reflection, perceiving the interconnectedness of
our natures; over time this potent spring of knowledge is distilled
into our moralities in a way that what we percieve suddenly becomes
manifold. Connections between the perceptions being attained begin to
more readily interpret them through our own knowledge of them, this
knowledge distiled into a philosophy apprehends the world at large by
seeing that all things are produced by a multiplicity of other things.
From this standpoint and operating by "the will to power" this progresur
of morals would seek to attain the highest interpretation of something,
to stand above the 'rabble' and see the higher natures at work in them.

So possibly taking your end quote there seeing that True Morality is the
basis for Higher Morality, the man of knowledge, as i will take it, is
the heir of the higher morality. A true morality is stationed here on
Earth in all of its physical and ethreal counterparts, whereas on the
other hand a Higher Morality seeks the highest interpretation of the
highest natures at work in what he percieves. True Morality functions
well in the world of men, and thus is used to serve it. Higher Morality
fucntions well in interpreting events/perceptions to it's highest
possible consequences. He gives out to the world behind the sheeth of
illusion and fictions but concentrates on the higher natures influencing
them into effect. To this it appears that he does very little, while in
the reality of the man of knowledge, he is actually affecting a great
deal, and he goes, as said, unseen.


-A.


--- In Nietzsche_and_Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "sonovymir"
<sonovymir@...> wrote:

>
> I would like to ask you Nietzsche experts a question. I have read a
> few Nietzsche books, "Beyond Good and Evil", "The AntiChrist", "Thus
> Spoke Zarathustra". And I constantly feel like I have reread and
> reread again. But heres my question, did Nietzsche believe in
> morality? I know that he believed that the "will to power" guides mans
> behavior and that it is natural for man to be "immoral". But he
> always claimed to believe in "higher morality". What would be the
> basis of such a creed? Total self-interest? Admiring the "natural
> order" for its pristine beauty? The fact that mans true
> nature(unadulturated from society) would have him vanguish those
> weaker than him and submit to the stronger? The fact that following
> the "natural order" is what we where "made" to do? Or is it simply a
> personal taste of Nietzsches that made his ethics?
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]