infinity is a useful lie.

Even in the inorganic world all that concerns an atom of energy is its immediate neighbourhood: distant forces balance each other. Here is the root of perspectivity, and it explains why a living organism is "egoistic" to the core. — Nietzsche

"YOU" is a falsification in unity forced through the psychology of grammar which is irreducibly Platonic. What you is:

Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally....

The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to manifest power; or the application and exercise of power as a creative instinct, etc. Physicists cannot get rid of the "actio in distans" in their principles; any more than they can a repelling force (or an attracting one). There is no help for it, all movements, all "appearances," all "laws" must be understood as symptoms of an inner phenomenon, and the analogy of man must be used for this purpose. It is possible to trace all the instincts of an animal to the will to power; as also all the functions of organic life to this one source. — Nietzsche

Spitting some :fire: there, Sir.

There is no part of "The World" that exists independently to "You", — bizso09

Sorry homie, the outer world isn't the work of our organs. The world exists independently of you.

I already covered that case before, how this would be impossible, simply via the introduction of an encapsulating world which would again relate back everything to "You". — bizso09

The error of imaginary causes... as in the world doesn't work like that so your "proof" is good for an imaginary world that does work like that...

Oh yeah... the fable of the True and Apparent world...

they're both fiction... all he's done is posit the same ole same ole "True world vs Apparent world." Consequently Nietzsche details how The True and Apparent worlds eventually became fable in Twilight of the Idols... in a six step process...

6. We have suppressed the true world: what world survives? the apparent world perhaps?... Certainly not! In abolishing the true world we have also abolished the world of appearance! — Nietzsche, Twilight of Idols

You're now just left with the world as is.

@bizso09 unfortunately you're just arguing Socrates and Plato. Which has aready been exposed and done away with in contemporary philosophy.

Foucault: Power Without Sovereignty
Foucault challenges the idea that power is only held by institutions and applied through law. Power is diffuse, relational and productive. It acts through norms, language and identity. One does not escape power by avoiding the state. Power shapes how we see and behave.

Foucault writes: “[Power] is produced from one moment to the next, at every point, or rather in every relation from one point to another. Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” — Moliere

Nietzsche's idea, not Foucault's.

The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to manifest power; or the application and exercise of power as a creative instinct, etc. Physicists cannot get rid of the "actio in distans" in their principles; any more than they can a repelling force (or an attracting one). There is no help for it, all movements, all "appearances," all "laws" must be understood as symptoms of an inner phenomenon, and the analogy of man must be used for this purpose. It is possible to trace all the instincts of an animal to the will to power; as also all the functions of organic life to this one source....

Even in the inorganic world all that concerns an atom of energy is its immediate neighbourhood: distant forces balance each other. Here is the root of perspectivity, and it explains why a living organism is "egoistic" to the core...

The bond between the inorganic and the organic world must lie in the repelling power exercised by every atom of energy. "Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally. To what extent does counter-strife exist even in obedience? Individual power is by no means surrendered through it. In the same way, there exists in the act of commanding, an acknowledgment of the fact that the absolute power of the adversary has not been overcome, absorbed, or dissipated. "Obedience," and "command," are forms of the game of war...

There are no laws: every power draws its last consequence at every moment... — Nietzsche

And so so so many more...

But as to the democratic institution of power... well...

"Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally.

Even still...
I feel like Nietzsche's approach to reconciliation, "the bridge to one's love," that always remains open in the noble TYPE's heart, and other details as well can perhaps really help your essay out in depth and nuance.

People shy away from Nietzsche, I get it, there are a lot of palefoil takes on Nietzsche that even a name drop association with can curdle someone's milk... But there is an abundance in Nietzsche that is so untapped in discussions like these. Even in a democratic setting. The thing is there are always a range of types. With Nietzsche, perhaps the concept of democracy can be transfigured in such a way that it serves the same purpose of democracy while still respecting the rank order and pathos of distance.

Democracy and Nietzsche bridge in several areas, like respecting the fact that a fundamental condition of life is perspective.

The world merely is. Whether it's this or that is your own testimony about the world. Consequently, people's perspective isn't the world.

There is no case... do it if you can't handle life. Better for those of us who can. Definitely don't try passing on such hereditary exhaustion.

Because they're trapped in platonic ideals. (A bit of a reduction but its a tldr statement).

I don’t really think those things of you, I was just grasping at straw, and making up fiction to place you outside of categories to pretend like you were a sinner.

I was like... damn, I know over 100% of the trans population?

Oh no, however are they going to handle a Real ID?... the same fucking way you do. Lol by going to the DMV...

The real question is ...
How are you going to survive the future knowing Trans wont ever go away?

Depends on what it is you're talking about. Like suppose I start just lambasting you with how much of a failure you are to fit my category of "man"?

Could you function outside of the emasculation of Christianity?

Since it rules over your every impulse...? If you can make externalized values "woman"ize you through Christianity... Then why cant a man simply adhere to internal values to emasculate themselves?

See how easy it is to turn the same style of bs talk around on you? For not fitting categories?

What's to stop any man from following a woman into a bathroom and raping her? Your chat about it is bullshit because you try to bring up issues with platonic categories for man and woman and are like.... "YOU CANT BE TRANS BECAUSE ONLY 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST FUCK THEM!"

The Left and Right are both a style ideological crisis for those unfortunates who cannot think and govern for themselves.

And “human” is a category, an ideal, just as much as “trans” is. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, all language is irreducibly platonic. The point is to not project upon them the notion of "man as such" or "woman as such." That's just a clumsy handling, you're not even treating them as a human at that point, rather more of an attack on your ideals.

Ps: When I say Heraclitus fell to the seduction of the of Eleatics, I'm talking about his stance on material monism. So using his material monism as a defense is just kinda silly.

He thought everything was in flux, but believed in material monism due to the seduction of grammar which forces the psychology of unity in definitions.

How do we identify a “thing” — Fire Ologist

Thinghood came through categorization via language and grammar which differentiates through definitions. Trans is an adjective that modifies a noun.

Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” — Fire Ologist

waves a gesturing hand towards the two bathrooms. "Overthere."

It's quite simple, you treat them by your mutual term, human. That you let platonic categories scew with your thinking just shows you dont really give a shit about the person but are more seduced into projecting your own platonic concepts upon them.

But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. — Fire Ologist

"Blah blah blah, No fux for flux." Since being is always moving it's becoming. Regardless of if you wanna be like "no he said BEING MOVES!" lol aight homie...

You didn't say a damn thing other than Heraclitus doesn't believe in a static being of permanence... which is Being... so more or less you said he does and doesn't believe in Being. Absurd.


Added:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. — Nietzsche. TLNMS

You forgot to use the word “is”. — Fire Ologist

Left out quite a few words "This whole thread is filled with people seduced by grammar." ...

Never said don't use grammar, just be aware of how using an irreducibly platonic tool forces a style of psychology upon the person, a style that is exceptionally seductive. Even Heraclitus fell to the seduction of grammar, and he was an opponent of BEING! That's to say all grammar forces "being" upon the experiences of "becoming" in order to discuss a "thing."

First and foremost humans are animals. Causa sui categories came from the metaphysics of language...

If someone doesn't fit another person's category and they say that someone is wrong... well. That's just the person projecting their platonic idealism. Projecting their unreality upon reality. Projecting their "True World."

Seduction of Grammar... this whole thread...

"Man" and "Woman" are merely a category of specific traits that not all "men" and "women" share.

"Man" and "Woman" are Platonic concepts... Man is not men and Woman is not women, it’s a generic representation of men and women. In Christianity/Platonism, the generic representation is more real than the many actual things it represents. And it’s “supposed to” represent all of them… even when it doesn’t… because it can’t actually do that.

But what this means to them is that, when it doesn’t, the actual thing is “should” make itself conform to the representation—whatever doesn’t do so is a “bad thing,” a sinner.

It's kinda retarded to think everyone fits a single category as the platonic representation...

How a person is, depends on the VALUES they accept and express. Which has nothing to do with anyone except the valuator.

It's quite simply they're trick fucked by the grammar of the language they use that forces "BEING" in a world of "BECOMING." Being, and thus The True Form are empty fictions. Hence you have YOUR way, and I have MY way, but as to THE way, it does not exist.

Oh, do I sense you've delved into a little Deleuze?

Assume a morning walk for a schizophrenic, for example — Outlander

Say a man has character, he has a typical experience which always recurrs, because being is an empty fiction.

And it really is quite that simple.

Normal: A typical experience.

nah, metaphysical truth. And, I feel you on not reading and listening to something at the same time, but it's not bad when the words and pace literary go in synch with the song which is 4:30 and the pace of reciting/reading at recitation pace takes like 4-4:20 unless you hasten your speech. But, I was mostly joking anyways. Though, I do find it to be quite an awesome mash up of audio.

Chopin Nocturne Op 9 #2, while reciting, reading and or listening to Nietzsche's Night-Song, from Thus Spake Zarathustra, Thomas Commons translation for those who don't know it in German. The super abundance experienced in the Dionysian Oneness that occurs is easily a case against suicide.

We know of plenty beyond our reality... it's why we require tools and equipment that go beyond the scope of our reality to even view them.

If that's the case then he ought to poke his nose into Jung's seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra... it actually goes through much of what he's asking about just by discussing various mythologies and symbols and their changes in meanings through the years. From the mythology of the Zoroastrians, to the Helenic Greek, and other cultures in years beyond those ages like Rome in discussing Mithraism etc etc.

Like a ghost for example is symbolic for someone who is so mentally absorbed by some trauma that they wither away. It's why Ghosts require an offering of the body via blood to partake in the world of the living... it's like when someone is so possessed it takes great hunger pains to momentarily distract them from their grief, to perhaps eat.

Classic Example, the wailing banshee... is the ghost of a mother who lost her baby.

It’s a grammatical seduction—the grammar forces a subject ("things") and then smuggles in an inner "within themselves." To project the "I" away from "it" the body. More or less the anti-realism of Christ.

 a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of reality survives, a merely “inner” world, a “true” world, an “eternal” world.... “The Kingdom of God is within you”.... — Nietzsche, AC § 30

What is a fiction in a world where appearance is perhaps more important than "truth?"

Is it any wonder you're so missing the picture with Nietzsche...

To comprehend this collective discharge of all the symbolic powers, a man must have already attained that height of self-abnegation, which wills to express itself symbolically through these powers: the Dithyrambic votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! With what astonishment must the Apollonian Greek have beheld him! With an astonishment, which was all the greater the more it was mingled with the shuddering suspicion that all this was in reality not so very foreign to him, yea, that, like unto a veil, his Apollonian consciousness only hid this Dionysian world from his view.

the ground of metaphysics I'm referring to is the principle of intelligibility. It has many different names. — Sirius

Ascetic Socratism, decadence, self-hate, life-denying...

Perhaps try understanding someone before misrepresenting their position. Seems you lost understanding at "fiction." Whatever rhetoric you project into my brief statement about MY THOUGHTS, which I already clarified, just goes to show how much of a munchkin you're being. Reduce Nietzsche? I'm pretty sure I told you he's many faceted

Nietzsche has many facets — DifferentiatingEgg

, is it any wonder a person often only finds in something the bs they put into it in the first place?

Then that's a terrible reading of Nietzsche — Sirius

Nah, you're just trying to reify what I'm saying through your filters and it's not registering because, you simply haven't the right optics for understanding. A similar but all together different set of stimulus receptors after all.

Nietzsche has many facets, that metaphysics is fictional doesn't mean it doesn't exist within thought...it's conceptual device created by humans.

As to knowing your Nietzsche it's obvious you didn't get his take on grammar

Nietzsche on Truth as a seduction via grammatical construction:

Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Wouldn't we have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they so far have habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It's clear that truth did not allow herself to be won over. And every form of dogmatism nowadays is standing there dismayed and disheartened - if it's still standing at all! For there are mockers who assert that they've collapsed, that all dogmatisms are lying on the floor, even worse, that they're at death's door. Speaking seriously, there are good reasons to hope that every dogmatism in philosophy - no matter how solemnly, conclusively, and decisively it has conducted itself - may have been merely a noble and rudimentary childish game, and the time is perhaps very close at hand, when people will again and again understand just how little has sufficed to provide the foundation stones for such lofty and unconditional philosophical constructions of the sort dogmatists have erected up to now - any popular superstition from unimaginably long ago (like the superstition of the soul, which today, in the form of the superstition about the subject and the ego, has still not stopped stirring up mischief), perhaps some game with words, a seduction by some grammatical construction, or a daring generalization from very narrow, very personal, very human, all-too-human facts. — Preface BGE

Of which he goes through several of these seductions through the opening of BGE...

And furtherstill we see in books like Twilight of Idols Nietzsche details that grammar shapes how we view the world in Reason in Philosophy...

Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion hitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in his discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar. — Twilight § 5 Reason in Philosophy

How is it that grammar creates Gods? By the way we end up categorizing things. The "will", or "nature" or "God" all unify a multiplicity of experience stimuli into a single word—a daring generalization—that exists as is, as the thing in itself...you can check out more on that via BGE 19 and 24, and Twilight: The Four Great Errors § 3 The Error of False Causality.

what's all this Jazz about Wittgenstein? I guess you thought I'm quoting him or something? Sorry homie, mostly my thoughts from reading Nietzsche (and Others) while considering the Platonic representation of words and how words shape human psychology... if those thoughts are like ole Witty's then he probably gathered a good deal from Nietzsche.

After a period of time, I fell into an overwhelming emptiness. I noticed that doing things and expressing myself in a certain way did not make me any "happier", so I thought that I was doing something wrong. It wasn't that I thought I haven't found that one thing that will fill up an empty bucket inside me. It was that there wasn't a bucket to fill up at all. And I really stressed out myself to the maximum, if you get what I mean. Feeling unworthy of everything, feeling incapable, frustrated, confused, trapped inside a reality I thought I was not built for. So, what one might describe as pain, came early. And I do not want to get graphic here. The existential torture and solitude was at its peak. Well, it still is but I'm more aware. This emotional anxiety, fatigue, confusion, dread felt as more real than anything I've ever felt before. — GreekSkeptic

Nietzsche details this as The Hour of Great Contempt.

the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becometh loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue.

The hour when ye say: “What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!” — Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Things like substances, essences, and unchanging truths, are mostly just fictional. Metaphysics is mostly "what a human says about a thing." A reification through grammar. A grammatical seduction.

not gonna lie, I stopped reading at around group rights and said ... "man, that message 'trans rights = human rights,' really went over dude's head, probably just like BLM." That's when I realized there's probably some other prejudice at play.

Isn't this called the GI Bill? :P

when one holds even in some part to the moral "mihi ipisi scripsi" (I write for myself), I believe that begins to give birth to their own language games, which is generally how most philosophers seduce others, through their grammatical construction...

It could be like bug bounties, in software? I suppose a problem there would be having to pay people to sift through all the bad answers.

A professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't see that as a problem at all.

I would say that quoting yourself, from a book as if the book were right simply out of merely existing, shows that in a doubletime fashion. I've been learning to just let people have their crazy thoughts. For the sake of not being banned, but still wanting to contribute on occasion when I finally catch something pertinent to me, and my life, then I decide if it's even worth my time discussing with people depending on who those people are. Which everyone is fair game after a certain cool down period. Some people have longer cooldown cycles than others.

Np, but figured I'd add that imo, more or less, the predicament of modernity comes down to man taming himself. Turning away from his instincts.

The task now, as John Vervaeke spells it out in his Awakening from the Meaning Crisis is to rediscover a living integration of science, meaning, and wisdom—to awaken from or see through the divisions that underlie the meaning crisis. — Wayfarer

This is where Nietzsche details that any long obedience in the same direction seems to always reveal something worth living for, as it is that long obedience which begins the process of building a transfiguring mirror. We can see this as early at Birth of Tragedy 3, but also in his later periods in aphorisms like 188 of Beyond Good and Evil.

The problem as always, is: that people adapt lies to fulfill the testimony of their senses. Such as the "truly" good. They formulate out of the prejudice of their conscious, what/how/when/who such and such ought to be. Anything not fitting within their platonic representations about the world are deemed as that sin that drives distance between they and another. The good grows out of the bad, and vice versa depending on how you initially posit values. They are all fruits on a plant, but very different plants all together. But all you'll find with metaphysicians is that such cannot be... but that they must consist within two completely distinct realms of "being," in that antithesis of values "Good" and "Evil." Because they see "becoming" is an illusion of the senses...