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

Re: Hi.

Expand Messages
  • pandemonium19
    ... for ... the ... well, ... Uebermensch ... right ... of ... the ... of ... means ... of ... quote I ... When I said spiritual I didn t mean for it to be
    Message 1 of 35 , Jun 22, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
      > <pandemonium19@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Of course "the gene for stubbornness" was my simplification, just
      for
      > > the example, although it is not a very good one. I just wanted to
      > > make everything clear and simple for those who don't have my
      > > understanding of genetics. I could have called it "gene X", but I
      > > think that would have sounded a lot worse as an example.
      > > Nietzsche's opinions probably count even more than those of the
      > > scientists, but still, you should base your opinions on those of
      the
      > > professionals, when dealing with a subject you don't understand
      well,
      > > such as Nietzsche and genetics.
      > > What d'you mean by your references to the negative of the
      Uebermensch
      > > or to spiritualism? I don't quite understand. Maybe I should
      right
      > > some sort of manifest and post it here just to be clearer.
      > >
      >
      > In your post "Thoughts of Night" (message # 179), you wrote:
      >
      > "What makes The Interior? Most likely DNA, although we would love to
      > believe that there s some spiritual component, unrelated to our
      > parents, in our bodies."
      >
      > I took this to mean something supernatural, like a "soul" (in the
      > religious sense).
      >
      > By the way, on the subject of reincarnation and the transmigration
      of
      > souls, I only believe in two kinds of reincarnation. The first is
      the
      > reincarnation of biological ancestors in their offspring (by means
      of
      > the passing on of genetic information). The second is the
      > reincarnation of spiritual "ancestors" in their "offspring" (by
      means
      > of the passing on of cultural information -- in this sense I might
      > call myself one of Nietzsche's heirs).
      >
      > As for the "negative" of the Uebermensch, I meant the "negative" as
      of
      > a photograph. I thought this would be clear from the Tom Wolfe
      quote I
      > provided.
      >

      When I said "spiritual" I didn't mean for it to be understood
      as "supernatural". Those are not the same: Spiritual is something
      metaphysical, which is of the world of energy and not the world of
      matter. Supernatural is something which we concieve as impossible in
      Nature, but we have evidences of it happening in Nature. One such
      thing is the "placebo effect", which is actually an indicator of
      humans' power of will to influence Nature.
    • sauwelios
      ... To support this I want to quote the following section in full: In order to think and infer it is necessary to assume beings: logic handles only formulas
      Message 35 of 35 , Jun 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
        > <pandemonium19@> wrote:
        > >
        > > "That idea is due to what Nietzsche called "the soul superstition".
        > > There is no matter and no void; there is only force."
        > >
        > > What is force?
        > >
        >
        > Oh, the soul superstition is necessary to describe it, if that's your
        > point. But this doesn't mean "souls" (in whichever form) really exist
        > (a most Nietzschean observation!).
        >

        To support this I want to quote the following section in full:

        "In order to think and infer it is necessary to assume beings: logic
        handles only formulas for what remains the same. That is why this
        assumption would not be proof of reality: "beings" are part of our
        perspective. The "ego" as a being (--not affected by becoming and
        development).
        The fictitious world of subject, substance, "reason," etc., is
        needed--: there is in us a power to order, simplify, falsify,
        artificially distinguish. "Truth" is the will to be master over the
        multiplicity of sensations:--to classify phenomena into definite
        categories. In this we start from a belief in the "in-itself" of
        things (we take phenomena as *real*).
        The character of the world in a state of becoming as incapable of
        formulation, as "false," as "self-contradictory." Knowledge and
        becoming exclude one another. Consequently, "knowledge" must be
        something else: there must first of all be a will to make knowable, a
        kind of becoming must itself create the deception of beings."
        [The Will to Power, section 517 (1887), entire.]

        This last remark may clarify something I argued over with Moody,
        starting with message # 100. In this message, Moody 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.

        This was in response to my argument:

        > If the will to power has become, then it is a becoming: something
        > fixed cannot become, something cannot become fixed.

        But as we see in the above quote, Nietzsche describes the "will to
        make knowable", which is a "will to be master", as "a kind of
        becoming". So if we identify this "will to be master" with the will to
        power, it follows that a pathos is indeed "a kind of becoming".
        However, this description is necessarily vague: for, as I said in
        message # 109, "Becoming presupposes Being, because Becoming is always
        a becoming-a-being. But Being is a wishful envisioning by the will to
        power. In truth there is no Being, nor a Becoming(-a-being), but only
        will to power. The will to power wills to see a Becoming(-a-being)
        into itself, and into that Becoming, in turn, a Being."

        The will to power is a kind of becoming, but it is also a kind of
        being. Note that "kind of" is not meant literally, as "species of",
        but descriptive, as "more or less" -- "kind" here means what
        Merriam-Webster calls "a doubtful or barely admissible member of a
        category".

        So far the *will* to power. Now as for power itself. I agree with
        Moody that Nietzsche's philosophy is not so much a Will philosophy as
        a Power philosophy. The will to power presupposes what I have called
        "the power to will". A pathos must arise from somewhere; it cannot
        arise ex nihilo. Thus Nietzsche says "there is in us a power [Macht]
        to order, simplify, falsify, artificially distinguish." [ibid.] This
        power is power of *pathos* -- strength of will, of passion -- a *dynamis*.

        But it was precisely to this *dynamis* that an "inner quality" -- an
        "inner will" -- needed to be ascribed according to Nietzsche. This is
        because it is in itself unintelligible to us.

        Nietzsche repeatedly said that "will" was only a word. Well, "power",
        too, is only a word. Power implies freedom. The power of life and
        death implies the freedom to *choose* between life and death -- in a
        deterministic world, there can be no power. We know, however, from
        experience that an urge or compulsion can arise into our seeming
        freedom, wiping it away. Nietzsche's idea, then, is to explain
        *everything* as such an urge or compulsion. Thus the *pathos* that is
        the will to power *is* power -- it is the force of said compulsion.
        Thus the will to power is really a will to will, or a passion for
        passion. This gives a hint as to the recurrent nature of this
        occurrence, this *pathos* (*pathos* means "event, occurrence" as well
        as "passion").

        The will to power is an urge or compulsion to the invention of a
        fantasy world -- a world of Being, freedom, etc. I have already called
        it "a passion for eternity"; I can now call it "a passion for
        freedom". How romantic these phrases sound!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.