Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [human_superhuman] Re: Is The Superman Supra-historical?

Expand Messages
  • Trevor Williams
    Have you read The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt? sauwelios wrote: --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com,
    Message 1 of 52 , May 19, 2008
      Have you read The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt?

      sauwelios <sauwelios@...> wrote:
      --- In human_superhuman@ yahoogroups. com, "moodylawless"
      <moodylawless@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I say that the will to power has become, this is not to say that it is
      > just another 'becoming' , it is rather the source of all becoming, as
      > you say.
      >
      > But this is not to say that it is a Being- rather, as Nietzsche says in
      > the piece you quote, it is called a pathos here.
      >
      > And what qualities does pathos have? Is it an eternal universal
      > standard?
      >
      > No - it is something shifting, unpredictable, irrational and changing.
      >
      > Pathos is a Becoming.
      >
      > So there is nothing here to suggest a metaphysics in the Platonic sense.
      >
      > The will to power, being the source of Becoming means that it is the
      > Becoming of all Becoming.
      >
      > It cannot be a Being, as you imply, as there is no explanation given as
      > to how Becoming can derive from a primal Being. Being can only produce
      > Being - Becoming can only produce Becoming just as the dead cannot give
      > birth to life - only the living can create life.
      >

      First off, I think your metaphor is an unfortunate one, as Nietzsche
      explicitly says the living is simply a *species* of the dead ("and a
      very rare species"). Life *has* originated from the "dead".

      It would be senseless, though, to pursue this metaphor further by
      saying that Becoming has originated from Being: for Becoming is not a
      species of Being.

      I've been wanting to ask you: Do you think History is historical,
      a-historical, or supra-historical?

      Would you say the ring of recurrence is the Being of Becoming? Or do
      you think that this ring has itself become (and then is there also a
      ring of recurrence of *its* becoming? But how about *that* ring, then)?

      This reminds me that I should perhaps translate and study the passage
      from Nietzsche's Nachlass titled "What I argue as a counterhypothesis
      against the circular process [i.e., against the thought of the eternal
      recurrence]" .

      You say:

      > I say that the will to power has become, this is not to say that it is
      > just another 'becoming' , it is rather the source of all becoming, as
      > you say.
      >

      You say it "has become". Does this mean its process of becoming has
      ended? So that it now *is*? Or is it still (indeed, always) in the
      middle of that process?

      Has it ever started to become? If so, from whence did it originate?
      Isn't it the "most elemental fact"?

      As I see it, it has never begun to become and will never cease from
      passing away. It is an event whose very essence is repetitive: it is
      not an occurrence, but a recurrence.

      > But this is not to say that it is a Being- rather, as Nietzsche says in
      > the piece you quote, it is called a pathos here.
      >

      It is neither a Being nor a Becoming. We might call the will to power
      a Pathos (will) for (to) Being (power). For the will to power is the
      will to exert power on the *whole* of existence: the "power" it wills
      to is the total amount of power in existence, which is constant (and
      therefore a "Being"). I never implied the *will* to power was a Being;
      I said *power* was a Being (a timeless, universal standard). The will
      to power is a Pathos for Being, and its striving for this Being
      expresses itself in the form of Becoming.

      > And what qualities does pathos have? Is it an eternal universal
      > standard?
      >
      > No - it is something shifting, unpredictable, irrational and changing.
      >
      > Pathos is a Becoming.
      >

      No, I disagree (and so does Nietzsche). It is neither a Becoming nor a
      Being.

      > So there is nothing here to suggest a metaphysics in the Platonic sense.
      >
      > The will to power, being the source of Becoming means that it is the
      > Becoming of all Becoming.

      But Becoming itself does not become; it *is*.

      >
      > --- In human_superhuman@ yahoogroups. com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
      > wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > If the will to power has become, then it is a becoming: something
      > > fixed cannot become, something cannot become fixed.
      > >
      > > Nietzsche, however, explicitly denies that the will to power is a
      > > becoming:
      > >
      > > "The following are [...] phenomenal: the injection of the concept of
      > > number, the concept of the thing (concept of the subject), the concept
      > > of activity (separation of cause from effect), the concept of motion
      > > (sight and touch): our eye and our psychology are still part of it.
      > > If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic
      > > quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their
      > > essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect"
      > > upon the same. The will to power not a being, not a becoming, but a
      > > *pathos*--the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting
      > > first emerge--"
      > > [The Will to Power, section 635.]
      > >
      > >
      >



      Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
      A Smarter Email.

    • moodylawless
      The point is that science is not as objective, neutral and value- free as it would like to think. The same claims were made by historicism in Nietzsche s day
      Message 52 of 52 , May 30, 2008
        The point is that science is not as objective, neutral and 'value-
        free' as it would like to think.

        The same claims were made by historicism in Nietzsche's day - hence
        the importance of Use and Abuse which goes beyond his critique of
        history to a critique of knowledge in general.

        The mysticism of the past was the science of its day.
        And today's science will be the mysticism of the future.

        Marxism makes the mistake of debunking other theories while
        forgetting that it too is just another theory.

        To quote Nietzsche - 'life is in love with the lie'.

        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "ubermensch1975"
        <ubermensch1975@...> wrote:

        > I was thinking the contrary- that it is mysticism that (with its
        > origins in platonic systems) assumed that reason existed a priori,
        and
        > that it could be interpreted as if it were cryptic and accessible
        only
        > to those "elected" by God to know it. Science, on the other hand, is
        > posterior to experience- it is deductive, inductive, but makes no
        > inference based solely on assumption.
        >
        > If you are interested I can give you a link to a site owned by an
        > extraordinary thinker, mathematician, and Marxist "philosopher"
        > (although she abhors that title). The work she has been developing
        for
        > the last ten years is an immense critique of Hegel's "Dialectical
        > materialism". That aside, she also provides a wonderful archeology
        of
        > "ruling class ideas", as she calls them, explaining how mysticism,
        > metaphysics, and theology was invented by the ruling classes with no
        > other intention than subordinating the working classes.
        >
        > They lied to us, guys.
        >
        > I would post the link but I know Sauwelios hates Marxist
        thought....so
        > I won't litter at his site.
        >
        > Make no mistake....I have nothing against mythology, metaphor, and
        the
        > esoteric in general....if it is proper and in the right company.
        >
        > BTW, Sauwelios, this yahoo format sucks balls. Can't you get a real
        > site, man?
        >
        > Let's all pitch in to pay for it. You people are good...but with my
        > help you could be the best. Allow us one year and we will own the
        > internet.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.