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

Re: Fragment of an advanced form of The Birth of Tragedy, paragraphs 1-5.

Expand Messages
  • sauwelios
    Regardless of what I said in message # 428, I have again taken up my study of Nietzsche s early metaphysics. ... I have an idea which may explain this. Mankind
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Regardless of what I said in message # 428, I have again taken up my study of Nietzsche's early metaphysics.


      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
      > > {snipped}
      > >
      > > Mankind, with
      > > all of Nature as its to be presupposed womb [Mutterschooß], may in
      > > this broadest sense be characterised as the continuous birth of the
      > > genius: seen from that monstrous omnipresent perspective of the
      > > Primordial One, the genius is attained at every moment, the whole
      > > pyramid of appearance is perfect up to its apex. We, in the narrowness
      > > of our view and within the perception-mechanism
      > > [Vorstellungsmechanismus] of time, space, and causality, have to take
      > > a back seat when we recognise the genius as one among many and after
      > > many human beings; yea, we may be glad when we have recognized him at
      > > all, which can at bottom only happen by coincidence and has in many
      > > cases certainly never happened.
      > >
      > > [...]
      > >
      > > "For that single eye of the world, before which the empirical-real
      > > world _together_ with its reverberation in the dream pours itself out,
      > > that Dionysian-Apollinian union is consequently an eternal and
      > > unchangeable, yea single form of enjoyment: [for that eye] there is no
      > > Dionysian appearance [Schein] without an Apollinian reverberation
      > > [Widerschein]. For our shortsighted, almost blind eyes, that
      > > phenomenon falls apart into purely individual, partly Apollinian
      > > partly Dionysian enjoyments, and only in the work of art that is the
      > > tragedy do we hear that highest twin art which, in its union of the
      > > Apollinian and the Dionysian, is the image [Abbild] of that primordial
      > > enjoyment of the eye of the world. Even as the genius is the apex of
      > > the pyramid of appearance for this eye, so we may regard the tragic
      > > artwork as the apex of the pyramid of art that our eyes can reach."
      > >
      >
      > This implies that the Primordial One does *not* perceive his grand hallucination, the universe, through the mechanism of time, space, and causality. Does this mean It sees it as *block time*? But then Its vision isn't a vision of Becoming, a changing vision, at all; it is a still image.


      I have an idea which may explain this. Mankind can "be characterised as the continuous birth of the genius"; and "all of Nature" is mankind's "to be presupposed womb". This may mean that, even as "the totality of the dream-life of many human beings" is "the preparation of the genius", the totality of the dream-life of much of *Nature* is the preparation of mankind. But what do I mean by "the dream-life of much of Nature"? In a fragmentary draft for a preface for the new edition of 'The Birth of Tragedy', Nietzsche speaks of man's "will to art, to lie, to flight from "truth", to *negation* of "truth"", which "ability"---"the artistic ability of man par excellence"---"he has in common with everything that is":

      "He himself is after all a piece of reality, truth, nature: how should he not also be a piece of *genius in lying*!"
      ['The Will to Power', section 853.]

      Note the terms "nature" and "genius"! We can now turn this around, saying that nature, as well as man, is an Apollinian genius. The "genius" has the power of vision in his *waking* life as well, whereas the "non-genius" only has it in his---literal---*dream*-life (we can call the waking life of the "genius" a dream-life in a *metaphorical* sense, a *daydream*-life); likewise, nature has the power of vision on an even lower level of consciousness: at the lowest, as *inorganic* nature: compare BGE 36, where he describes the mechanistic (or "material") world as

      "a more primitive form of the world of affects in which everything still lies contained in a powerful unity before it undergoes ramifications and developments in the organic process (and, as is only fair, pampered and weakened, too---), as a kind of instinctive life in which all organic functions, along with self-regulation, assimilation, nourishment, excretion, metabolism, are still synthetically linked with one another---as a *pre-form* of life."

      But I am digressing. My idea is basically that the total power of vision, and thereby the total amount of "dreaming", remains constant: that in the "non-genius" it is merely more *concentrated* than in for instance inorganic nature, and in the "genius", in turn, more concentrated than in the "non-genius".
    • sauwelios
      I forgot to explicate the problem my idea seeks to solve. The problem is that mankind, or a species like it (regardless of whether it be from earth or from
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I forgot to explicate the problem my idea seeks to solve. The problem is that mankind, or a species like it (regardless of whether it be from earth or from outer space), has not always existed and will not always exist.

        The consequence of my idea---the way it solves said problem---is the following. If the total amount of 'dreaming' remains constant, then for the Primordial One, before Which "the empirical-real world" as a *whole* "*together* with its reverberation in the dream pours itself out", "the genius is attained at every moment", the "Dionysian-Apollinian union is [...] an eternal and unchangeable, yea single form of enjoyment".

        The empirical-real world as a whole is the universal process---that is, time as it flows, not 'block time'.

        For the Primordial One, "the empirical-real world" as a whole "*together* with its reverberation in the dream" is a "pyramid of appearance" whose "apex" is the 'genius'. We can explain its pyramid form as follows. The 'narrower' (that is, the more concentrated) the power of vision becomes, the 'higher' (that is, the richer and more complex) becomes the 'dreaming'. It is human, all too human to call it "higher", though: for for the Primordial One, it is a difference without any value judgment attached to it. For *Nature*, on the other hand, the question whether up or down *does* matter: for Nature strives toward the 'genius'. This is because Nature cannot see herself as the Primordial One sees her, as a ravishing hallucination. For this reason she needs the Apollinian genius (cf. message # 57): for she, being *herself* the dream of the Primordial One and the scattered 'dreams' *within* that dream, cannot tie those 'dreams' together---cannot see the grandiose whole that the P.O. sees. She therefore, like the P.O., needs such a grandiose whole, e.g., an epic vision (including in the metaphorical sense of "epic"). Only the Apollinian genius can truly satisfy this need of hers.


        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
        >
        > Regardless of what I said in message # 428, I have again taken up my study of Nietzsche's early metaphysics.
        >
        >
        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
        > > > {snipped}
        > > >
        > > > Mankind, with
        > > > all of Nature as its to be presupposed womb [Mutterschooß], may in
        > > > this broadest sense be characterised as the continuous birth of the
        > > > genius: seen from that monstrous omnipresent perspective of the
        > > > Primordial One, the genius is attained at every moment, the whole
        > > > pyramid of appearance is perfect up to its apex. We, in the narrowness
        > > > of our view and within the perception-mechanism
        > > > [Vorstellungsmechanismus] of time, space, and causality, have to take
        > > > a back seat when we recognise the genius as one among many and after
        > > > many human beings; yea, we may be glad when we have recognized him at
        > > > all, which can at bottom only happen by coincidence and has in many
        > > > cases certainly never happened.
        > > >
        > > > [...]
        > > >
        > > > "For that single eye of the world, before which the empirical-real
        > > > world _together_ with its reverberation in the dream pours itself out,
        > > > that Dionysian-Apollinian union is consequently an eternal and
        > > > unchangeable, yea single form of enjoyment: [for that eye] there is no
        > > > Dionysian appearance [Schein] without an Apollinian reverberation
        > > > [Widerschein]. For our shortsighted, almost blind eyes, that
        > > > phenomenon falls apart into purely individual, partly Apollinian
        > > > partly Dionysian enjoyments, and only in the work of art that is the
        > > > tragedy do we hear that highest twin art which, in its union of the
        > > > Apollinian and the Dionysian, is the image [Abbild] of that primordial
        > > > enjoyment of the eye of the world. Even as the genius is the apex of
        > > > the pyramid of appearance for this eye, so we may regard the tragic
        > > > artwork as the apex of the pyramid of art that our eyes can reach."
        > > >
        > >
        > > This implies that the Primordial One does *not* perceive his grand hallucination, the universe, through the mechanism of time, space, and causality. Does this mean It sees it as *block time*? But then Its vision isn't a vision of Becoming, a changing vision, at all; it is a still image.
        >
        >
        > I have an idea which may explain this. Mankind can "be characterised as the continuous birth of the genius"; and "all of Nature" is mankind's "to be presupposed womb". This may mean that, even as "the totality of the dream-life of many human beings" is "the preparation of the genius", the totality of the dream-life of much of *Nature* is the preparation of mankind. But what do I mean by "the dream-life of much of Nature"? In a fragmentary draft for a preface for the new edition of 'The Birth of Tragedy', Nietzsche speaks of man's "will to art, to lie, to flight from "truth", to *negation* of "truth"", which "ability"---"the artistic ability of man par excellence"---"he has in common with everything that is":
        >
        > "He himself is after all a piece of reality, truth, nature: how should he not also be a piece of *genius in lying*!"
        > ['The Will to Power', section 853.]
        >
        > Note the terms "nature" and "genius"! We can now turn this around, saying that nature, as well as man, is an Apollinian genius. The "genius" has the power of vision in his *waking* life as well, whereas the "non-genius" only has it in his---literal---*dream*-life (we can call the waking life of the "genius" a dream-life in a *metaphorical* sense, a *daydream*-life); likewise, nature has the power of vision on an even lower level of consciousness: at the lowest, as *inorganic* nature: compare BGE 36, where he describes the mechanistic (or "material") world as
        >
        > "a more primitive form of the world of affects in which everything still lies contained in a powerful unity before it undergoes ramifications and developments in the organic process (and, as is only fair, pampered and weakened, too---), as a kind of instinctive life in which all organic functions, along with self-regulation, assimilation, nourishment, excretion, metabolism, are still synthetically linked with one another---as a *pre-form* of life."
        >
        > But I am digressing. My idea is basically that the total power of vision, and thereby the total amount of "dreaming", remains constant: that in the "non-genius" it is merely more *concentrated* than in for instance inorganic nature, and in the "genius", in turn, more concentrated than in the "non-genius".
        >
      • Sauwelios
        ... I am now reading the Nachlass of 1869-71, with the aim of fathoming Nietzsche s early metaphysics. I ve come across a note that explains how the genius is
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 16, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
          > > {snipped}
          > >
          > > Mankind, with
          > > all of Nature as its to be presupposed womb [Mutterschooß], may in
          > > this broadest sense be characterised as the continuous birth of the
          > > genius: seen from that monstrous omnipresent perspective of the
          > > Primordial One, the genius is attained at every moment, the whole
          > > pyramid of appearance is perfect up to its apex. We, in the narrowness
          > > of our view and within the perception-mechanism
          > > [Vorstellungsmechanismus] of time, space, and causality, have to take
          > > a back seat when we recognise the genius as one among many and after
          > > many human beings; yea, we may be glad when we have recognized him at
          > > all, which can at bottom only happen by coincidence and has in many
          > > cases certainly never happened.
          > >
          > > [...]
          > >
          > > "For that single eye of the world, before which the empirical-real
          > > world _together_ with its reverberation in the dream pours itself out,
          > > that Dionysian-Apollinian union is consequently an eternal and
          > > unchangeable, yea single form of enjoyment: [for that eye] there is no
          > > Dionysian appearance [Schein] without an Apollinian reverberation
          > > [Widerschein]. For our shortsighted, almost blind eyes, that
          > > phenomenon falls apart into purely individual, partly Apollinian
          > > partly Dionysian enjoyments, and only in the work of art that is the
          > > tragedy do we hear that highest twin art which, in its union of the
          > > Apollinian and the Dionysian, is the image [Abbild] of that primordial
          > > enjoyment of the eye of the world. Even as the genius is the apex of
          > > the pyramid of appearance for this eye, so we may regard the tragic
          > > artwork as the apex of the pyramid of art that our eyes can reach."
          > >
          >
          > This implies that the Primordial One does *not* perceive his grand hallucination, the universe, through the mechanism of time, space, and causality. Does this mean It sees it as *block time*? But then Its vision isn't a vision of Becoming, a changing vision, at all; it is a still image. Does that mean that Its own Being has the character of *Becoming*? From which It is redeemed in Its vision of Parmenidean "Being"? But in his Attempt at a Self-Criticism, Nietzsche writes:
          >
          > "The world---at every moment the *attained* salvation ['Erlösung'] of God, as the eternally changing, eternally new vision of the most deeply afflicted, discordant, and contradictory being who can find salvation only in *appearance*[...]"
          > [Attempt at a Self-Criticism, 5.]
          >
          > And in the Nachlass we find a similar description:
          >
          > "Becoming, experienced and explained from the inside, would be the continuous creation ['Schaffen'] [on the part] of an unsatisfied one, an awfully rich one ['Überreichen'], an infinitely tense and pressed one, of a God who overcomes the torment of Being only through constant transformation and change ['beständiges Verwandeln und Wechseln']:---appearance as his temporary, at-every-moment-attained redemption ['Erlösung']; the world as the succession of divine visions and redemptions in appearance."
          >
          > No, it still seems to me that this God has Parmenidean "Being", and that his vision is a *Becoming*. But then how can Nietzsche say that "the genius is attained at every moment"? There have not always been living beings, let alone geniuses. How then can Nietzsche say that "For that single eye of the world [...] there is no Dionysian appearance ['Schein'] without an Apollinian reverberation ['Widerschein']"?


          I am now reading the Nachlass of 1869-71, with the aim of fathoming Nietzsche's early metaphysics. I've come across a note that explains how "the genius is attained at every moment". Unfortunately, I do not understand the note. I will quote and translate it here; if it makes sense to you, please post your interpretation here.

          "Die Spitzen der Menschheit sind genauer die Mittelpunkte eines Halbkreises. Nämlich es giebt eine auf- und eine absteigende Linie. Die Weltgeschichte ist kein einheitlicher Prozess. *Das Ziel derselben ist fortwährend erreicht.*"
          [Ende 1870 - April 1871 7 [145].]

          "The apexes of mankind are, more precisely, the centres [or: "midpoints"] of a semicircle. For there is an ascending and a descending line. World history is no unitary process. *Its goal is attained continuously [or: "continually"].*"
          [End of 1870 - April 1871 7 [145], entire.]

          Perhaps he just means that 'world history' (i.e., the history of mankind) is really a series of quite independent developments. We can picture this as a series of overlapping semicircles on a timeline. Then this is just a way of saying:

          "[S]uccess in individual cases is constantly [*fortwährend*!] encountered in the most widely different places and cultures; here we really do find a *higher type*: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman. Such fortunate accidents of great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be possible."
          [The Antichrist (1888), section 4.]

          This is nice because it shows the continuity in Nietzsche's thought from the very beginning of his philosophical career down to the very end. It does not, however, explain why the genius or overman is attained *at every moment*. For that would have to be pictured as a timeline with an infinite number of overlapping semicircles the distance between whose midpoints or summits is infinitesimal. And of course the problem remains: mankind (or a species like it) has not always existed and will not always exist.
        • Sauwelios
          I think I may understand Nietzsche s early metaphysics [NEM] now. First off, the Primordial One is not transcendent, but immanent. It does not have Being in
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 17, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I think I may understand Nietzsche's early metaphysics [NEM] now. First off, the Primordial One is not transcendent, but immanent. It does not have 'Being' in the Parmenidean sense, but is 'contradictory'. This must be understood in the sense of Logic: the 'law' of (non-)contradiction does not apply to the Primordial One:

            "I have the suspicion, that things and thought are not adequate with one another. For in Logic, the law of contradiction prevails, which *perhaps* does not obtain among things---which *are* different, antithetical."
            [Nachlass End of 1870 - April 1871, 7 [110], entire.]

            The reason Nietzsche emphasises "are" is that he does not mean that things are different and antithetical to *each other*, but to *themselves*...

            My earlier understanding of NEM was *Platonic*. But Nietzsche writes:

            "My philosophy [is] *inverted Platonism*: the farther away from that which truly is [*wahrhaft Seienden*], the purer, more beautiful, better it is. Life [or: "living"] in appearance as goal."
            [ibid., 7 [156], entire.]

            Platonic Ideas---which have 'Being' in the Parmenidean sense---are the farthest away from that which truly is, i.e., from the Primordial One. The goal is to live in Apollinian appearance:

            "Apollo appears to us once again as the apotheosis of the principium individuationis, in whom the eternal goal of the original Oneness, namely its redemption through illusion, accomplishes itself. With august gesture the god shows us how there is need for a whole world of torment in order for the individual to produce the redemptive vision and to sit quietly in his rocking rowboat in mid sea, absorbed in contemplation."
            [BT 4.]

            As Nietzsche says here, living in appearance is the goal of the *original Oneness* (AKA the Primordial One). The goal of the *individual*, however, is to become "wholly identified with the original Oneness, its pain and contradiction" (BT 5), then to produce "a replica of that Oneness as music, if music may legitimately be seen as a repetition of the world", which replica "becomes visible to him again, as in a *dream similitude*, through the Apollinian dream influence".

            "Enchantment is the precondition of all dramatic art. In this enchantment the Dionysian reveler sees himself as satyr [i.e., as part of the chorus of satyrs, which is the original Oneness], *and as satyr, in turn, he sees the god*---that is, in his transformation he sees a new vision, which is the Apollinian completion of his state. And by the same token this new vision completes the dramatic act."
            [BT 8.]

            The goal of the *individual*, then, is to become "not only reconciled to his fellow but actually at one with him---as though the veil of Maya had been torn apart and there remained only shreds floating before the vision of mystical Oneness." (BT 1.) For in that state (or rather *ec-stasy*) he may partake in the complete redemption of the original Oneness, Its supreme joy, which consists in being absorbed in the contemplation of the individual's Apollinian vision:

            "[I]f, for the moment, we abstract from our own reality, viewing our empiric existence, as well as the existence of the world at large, as the idea [from Gk. *[w]idein*, "to see"] of the original Oneness, produced anew each instant, then our dreams will appear to us as *illusions of illusions*, hence as a still higher form of satisfaction of the original desire for illusion."
            [BT 4.]

            Note that what Nietzsche literally says is that our *dream* (singular) will appear to us as *appearance of appearance* (as opposed to 'appearance of Being', i.e., of what is true).

            Only by realising his oneness with the original Oneness can the individual enjoy his dream or vision as appearance of appearance of Being, instead of merely as appearance of Being (in other words, as an image of an image of reality, instead of merely an image of reality). The farther away from true Being, i.e., the more 'apparent', the better!

            This explanation is by no means exhaustive. More soon!


            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
            > > > {snipped}
            > > >
            > > > Mankind, with
            > > > all of Nature as its to be presupposed womb [Mutterschooß], may in
            > > > this broadest sense be characterised as the continuous birth of the
            > > > genius: seen from that monstrous omnipresent perspective of the
            > > > Primordial One, the genius is attained at every moment, the whole
            > > > pyramid of appearance is perfect up to its apex. We, in the narrowness
            > > > of our view and within the perception-mechanism
            > > > [Vorstellungsmechanismus] of time, space, and causality, have to take
            > > > a back seat when we recognise the genius as one among many and after
            > > > many human beings; yea, we may be glad when we have recognized him at
            > > > all, which can at bottom only happen by coincidence and has in many
            > > > cases certainly never happened.
            > > >
            > > > [...]
            > > >
            > > > "For that single eye of the world, before which the empirical-real
            > > > world _together_ with its reverberation in the dream pours itself out,
            > > > that Dionysian-Apollinian union is consequently an eternal and
            > > > unchangeable, yea single form of enjoyment: [for that eye] there is no
            > > > Dionysian appearance [Schein] without an Apollinian reverberation
            > > > [Widerschein]. For our shortsighted, almost blind eyes, that
            > > > phenomenon falls apart into purely individual, partly Apollinian
            > > > partly Dionysian enjoyments, and only in the work of art that is the
            > > > tragedy do we hear that highest twin art which, in its union of the
            > > > Apollinian and the Dionysian, is the image [Abbild] of that primordial
            > > > enjoyment of the eye of the world. Even as the genius is the apex of
            > > > the pyramid of appearance for this eye, so we may regard the tragic
            > > > artwork as the apex of the pyramid of art that our eyes can reach."
            > > >
            > >
            > > This implies that the Primordial One does *not* perceive his grand hallucination, the universe, through the mechanism of time, space, and causality. Does this mean It sees it as *block time*? But then Its vision isn't a vision of Becoming, a changing vision, at all; it is a still image. Does that mean that Its own Being has the character of *Becoming*? From which It is redeemed in Its vision of Parmenidean "Being"? But in his Attempt at a Self-Criticism, Nietzsche writes:
            > >
            > > "The world---at every moment the *attained* salvation ['Erlösung'] of God, as the eternally changing, eternally new vision of the most deeply afflicted, discordant, and contradictory being who can find salvation only in *appearance*[...]"
            > > [Attempt at a Self-Criticism, 5.]
            > >
            > > And in the Nachlass we find a similar description:
            > >
            > > "Becoming, experienced and explained from the inside, would be the continuous creation ['Schaffen'] [on the part] of an unsatisfied one, an awfully rich one ['Überreichen'], an infinitely tense and pressed one, of a God who overcomes the torment of Being only through constant transformation and change ['beständiges Verwandeln und Wechseln']:---appearance as his temporary, at-every-moment-attained redemption ['Erlösung']; the world as the succession of divine visions and redemptions in appearance."
            > >
            > > No, it still seems to me that this God has Parmenidean "Being", and that his vision is a *Becoming*. But then how can Nietzsche say that "the genius is attained at every moment"? There have not always been living beings, let alone geniuses. How then can Nietzsche say that "For that single eye of the world [...] there is no Dionysian appearance ['Schein'] without an Apollinian reverberation ['Widerschein']"?
            >
            >
            > I am now reading the Nachlass of 1869-71, with the aim of fathoming Nietzsche's early metaphysics. I've come across a note that explains how "the genius is attained at every moment". Unfortunately, I do not understand the note. I will quote and translate it here; if it makes sense to you, please post your interpretation here.
            >
            > "Die Spitzen der Menschheit sind genauer die Mittelpunkte eines Halbkreises. Nämlich es giebt eine auf- und eine absteigende Linie. Die Weltgeschichte ist kein einheitlicher Prozess. *Das Ziel derselben ist fortwährend erreicht.*"
            > [Ende 1870 - April 1871 7 [145].]
            >
            > "The apexes of mankind are, more precisely, the centres [or: "midpoints"] of a semicircle. For there is an ascending and a descending line. World history is no unitary process. *Its goal is attained continuously [or: "continually"].*"
            > [End of 1870 - April 1871 7 [145], entire.]
            >
            > Perhaps he just means that 'world history' (i.e., the history of mankind) is really a series of quite independent developments. We can picture this as a series of overlapping semicircles on a timeline. Then this is just a way of saying:
            >
            > "[S]uccess in individual cases is constantly [*fortwährend*!] encountered in the most widely different places and cultures; here we really do find a *higher type*: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman. Such fortunate accidents of great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be possible."
            > [The Antichrist (1888), section 4.]
            >
            > This is nice because it shows the continuity in Nietzsche's thought from the very beginning of his philosophical career down to the very end. It does not, however, explain why the genius or overman is attained *at every moment*. For that would have to be pictured as a timeline with an infinite number of overlapping semicircles the distance between whose midpoints or summits is infinitesimal. And of course the problem remains: mankind (or a species like it) has not always existed and will not always exist.
            >
          • Sauwelios
            ... It s not just that the individual s visions are images of images of Being, instead of merely images of Being, but that the former are wholly Outside ,
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 17, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
              >
              > I think I may understand Nietzsche's early metaphysics [NEM] now. First off, the Primordial One is not transcendent, but immanent. It does not have 'Being' in the Parmenidean sense, but is 'contradictory'. This must be understood in the sense of Logic: the 'law' of (non-)contradiction does not apply to the Primordial One:
              >
              > "I have the suspicion, that things and thought are not adequate with one another. For in Logic, the law of contradiction prevails, which *perhaps* does not obtain among things---which *are* different, antithetical."
              > [Nachlass End of 1870 - April 1871, 7 [110], entire.]
              >
              > The reason Nietzsche emphasises "are" is that he does not mean that things are different and antithetical to *each other*, but to *themselves*...
              >
              > My earlier understanding of NEM was *Platonic*. But Nietzsche writes:
              >
              > "My philosophy [is] *inverted Platonism*: the farther away from that which truly is [*wahrhaft Seienden*], the purer, more beautiful, better it is. Life [or: "living"] in appearance as goal."
              > [ibid., 7 [156], entire.]
              >
              > Platonic Ideas---which have 'Being' in the Parmenidean sense---are the farthest away from that which truly is, i.e., from the Primordial One. The goal is to live in Apollinian appearance:
              >
              > "Apollo appears to us once again as the apotheosis of the principium individuationis, in whom the eternal goal of the original Oneness, namely its redemption through illusion, accomplishes itself. With august gesture the god shows us how there is need for a whole world of torment in order for the individual to produce the redemptive vision and to sit quietly in his rocking rowboat in mid sea, absorbed in contemplation."
              > [BT 4.]
              >
              > As Nietzsche says here, living in appearance is the goal of the *original Oneness* (AKA the Primordial One). The goal of the *individual*, however, is to become "wholly identified with the original Oneness, its pain and contradiction" (BT 5), then to produce "a replica of that Oneness as music, if music may legitimately be seen as a repetition of the world", which replica "becomes visible to him again, as in a *dream similitude*, through the Apollinian dream influence".
              >
              > "Enchantment is the precondition of all dramatic art. In this enchantment the Dionysian reveler sees himself as satyr [i.e., as part of the chorus of satyrs, which is the original Oneness], *and as satyr, in turn, he sees the god*---that is, in his transformation he sees a new vision, which is the Apollinian completion of his state. And by the same token this new vision completes the dramatic act."
              > [BT 8.]
              >
              > The goal of the *individual*, then, is to become "not only reconciled to his fellow but actually at one with him---as though the veil of Maya had been torn apart and there remained only shreds floating before the vision of mystical Oneness." (BT 1.) For in that state (or rather *ec-stasy*) he may partake in the complete redemption of the original Oneness, Its supreme joy, which consists in being absorbed in the contemplation of the individual's Apollinian vision:
              >
              > "[I]f, for the moment, we abstract from our own reality, viewing our empiric existence, as well as the existence of the world at large, as the idea [from Gk. *[w]idein*, "to see"] of the original Oneness, produced anew each instant, then our dreams will appear to us as *illusions of illusions*, hence as a still higher form of satisfaction of the original desire for illusion."
              > [BT 4.]
              >
              > Note that what Nietzsche literally says is that our *dream* (singular) will appear to us as *appearance of appearance* (as opposed to 'appearance of Being', i.e., of what is true).
              >
              > Only by realising his oneness with the original Oneness can the individual enjoy his dream or vision as appearance of appearance of Being, instead of merely as appearance of Being (in other words, as an image of an image of reality, instead of merely an image of reality). The farther away from true Being, i.e., the more 'apparent', the better!
              >

              It's not just that the individual's visions are images of images of Being, instead of merely images of Being, but that the former are "wholly Outside", whereas the latter are the "Outside" of an "Inside"...

              When I look at my computer monitor, I see a surface of the original Oneness. And I myself, too, am such a surface. So the original Oneness, though indivisible, can through *one* of Its parts perceive *another* of its parts, even though both parts are inextricably connected.

              When I *imagine* a computer monitor, I 'see' an object which is all surface or, in Nietzsche's words, all "Outside" (*Aussenseite*)---it is not the Outside to an Inside: e.g., there are no wires within the monitor.
            • sauwelios
              ... This is wrong: the genius mentioned here is the *Apollinian* genius, and he has the power to feel the rapture at the vision himself not in the sense that
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 18, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote: [snipped]
                >
                > "The _human being_ [Mensch] and the _genius_ do in so far stand
                > opposite each other as the former is wholly a work of art, without
                > becoming aware of this, because the satisfaction at him as at a work
                > of art belongs wholly in a different sphere of knowledge and
                > observation: in this sense he belongs to Nature, which is nothing but
                > a vision-like reflection of the Primordial One. In the genius on the
                > other hand there exists - besides the significance inherent to him as
                > a human being - at the same time yet that power proper to the other
                > sphere, the power to feel the rapture at the vision himself."
                >
                > Here we have the idea that the whole of Nature, including man, "is
                > nothing but a vision-like reflection of the Primordial One." But
                > contrary to the average man, the genius is capable of regarding
                > Nature, including himself, as such. This already implies that the
                > genius can somehow put himself in the place of the Primordial One,
                > which idea is made explicit in paragraph 3:
                >

                This is wrong: the genius mentioned here is the *Apollinian* genius, and he has "the power to feel the rapture at the vision himself" not in the sense that he can regard himself as what he truly is, namely a vision on the part of the Primordial One, but in the sense that, like the Primordial One, he can have elaborate visions (compare Nietzsche's description of himself as "the visionary of the Zarathustra" in EH Clever 4).
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.