Wallow, wallow
Little swallow
Know you not,
What to follow?

Here I wait
In my faith
That you will
Still be late

Though my dear,
It is clear
That you have left,
Deft, flew from here.

The winds don't blow,
O, don't you know
That I wait,
Late in snow

So my dear swallow,
It is hard to swallow
I must go home,
Groan and wallow.

One is unknown. There may or may not be a GOD — Frank Apisa

Both are unknown. There may or may not be a Great-great-grandfather.

But every goddam person who has ever lived has had a father...which means everyone's father has had a father...which means everyone who has had a father has had a grandfather. And the grandfather has had a father...and that father has had a father...which means that every one has had a father, a grandfather, a great grandfather, and a great, great grandfather. — Frank Apisa

And going back far enough, your progenitor did not only believe in God but was created by God.

Are you going to tell your progenitor he's wrong?
Go ahead. :yum:

No...they cannot. — Frank Apisa

Because? Both are unknown.

Anyone with a brain KNOWS they had a great, great grandfather. They KNOW they their great, great, grandfather also had a great, great grandfather. — Frank Apisa

By the same logic anyone may KNOW there is a God.

But clearly there is humanity, right?
So where do you figure the real humans have hidden themselves?

I see humans but not humanity. — virginia west

The reverse Diogenes - who saw humanity, but no humans.

Domination is maybe a bit of a loaded term, but the will to power yes... and then will to power not necessarily as 'worldy power', although it can entail that, but primary as the an overarching drive that dominates and structures other instincts. — ChatteringMonkey

The 'will to power' term finds its roots with The Book of Abramelin - where the practitioner is instructed to abate society and then proclaim dominance over all vices (unclean spirits) to assume contact with his higher/true self.

It in essence means divine will, where the will of the actor is unimpeded.
That's where Western European occultist tradition is derived from, and the idea of the Übermensch is nothing new to it. To it, the Übermensch is the destroyer of the Ego.

I'd go as far as to say that Nietzsche envisions his Übermensch as King Solomon - the wise, exuberant king; who is again at the core of the Abramelin Tradition.
Which going to back to...

As for Nietzsche and his Übermensch, I see it as the equivalent to a teenager's rebellion against authority — Shamshir

Is what the story of Solomon entails.

In a lot of instances Nietzsche talks about 'anarchy in the instinct' as the cause for the turn to reason as a tyrant (to subdue that anarchy), as in the case of Ancient Greece and Socrates... which only makes things worse in some ways. The point being here, that he clearly doesn't believe that no structure at all is the way to go, eventhough said structure might seem to be contrary to the dionysian and the concept of the overman. — ChatteringMonkey

The Dionysian tradition is living in unison with nature, which is what the Anarchist craves.
The Anarchist is not without structure - his structure is the Animal Kingdom; that's the freedom the Anarchist craves.

I think it's important to consider the bureaucracy that surrounded Nietzsche, to see what his Übermensch is in practice.
And that is why I compare the Übermensch to both the Anarchist and The Shepherd (King Solomon).
Whilst the Anarchist entails the freedom from superfluous society, Nietzsche being a so-called philosopher, he would seek to elevate himself rather than dissolve - which is what society was to him, a dissolution of the individual.
The Shepherd in his dominance over the sheep, is free like the sheep - but it is not due to blissful ignorance, but a wise overcoming.

All Nietzsche is doing, is reflecting what he despises; it's reversed, but it's the same.
His Übermensch isn't beyond a creed, he is beyond The Creed of Man.
The Übermensch who is without a creed altogether, has to be neither Over nor a Man.

Q: What does it mean to be alive?
A: You'll know when you're dead.

I "believe" in God"...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.

I "believe" there are no gods...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY. — Frank Apisa

Yeah, those two sentences are blind guesses - your own.

Anyone who hasn't seen their Great-great-grandfather, believes they have this unknown to them grandfather.
Are those people blindly guessing?

In practice, the thing which most symbolises being unbound, would be going with the flow - which entails dissolution.

But I think we may both agree, Nietzsche does not seek dissolution - rather domination; may we?

Just say you've got no proof, wuss. :shade:

It is not a "belief" — Frank Apisa

No, it isn't. — Frank Apisa

Any proof, other than you believe it isn't?

What's and where's the infallible proof that determines it's not a belief?

I find your proposal of Jesus Christ as an anarchist quaint.
After all, all progress is simply the little bit of anarchy or perhaps better said 'rule-breaking' between two periods.

As to: Can one change values if bound by a creed? Indeed, one can.
Like you said, one can and I'd even add must impose a creed to change values.
Like how a stairway is the same repeated action and object - but it entails change.

As for Nietzsche and his Übermensch, I see it as the equivalent to a teenager's rebellion against authority, rather than a surpassing of authority - as the real Úbermensch, I think, is a hermit or in your own thought, a shepherd amongst sheep.

Adding to that last bit - your idea of the Ûbermensch may be more in line with Nietzsche's - who doesn't want The Good Shepherd, merely The Shepherd, in relation to Jesus Christ.

I do not do believing — Frank Apisa

That's a belief

I know that it is not a belief. — Frank Apisa

That is also a belief.

And I know that it's a belief in the same way you know it isn't.
Canny, right?

One...it is not a "belief." I know it. — Frank Apisa

You believe you know it.
It's possible you don't.

Jesus was a mortal man. And he's not the first or only Son of God; one can be found in the Book of Daniel.

Is it really ridiculous to consider that humanity was artificially mutated, considering they are trying to be artificially mutated in this very day and age?

And that's the point of the Übermensch, an artificial mutation - like the cyborg, free from his human limitations.

I don't know. Tell me please. — Merkwurdichliebe

POLON means pillar; figure out the rest. :victory:

That is hard to swallow. But, I cannot help but think that everything is the result of a mutagen. I love whacky suggestions — Merkwurdichliebe

That's what the theory of evolution is, right?
That some random fish mutated in to humans.

And then, enters the fool, voicing out - that it was due to the mutagen they ate, as described in the Bible.

Let me ask you, what do you think the name APOLON means?
What is its etymology?

And here's a wacky suggestion, what if the Fruit of Good and Evil was just mutagen?
What if they gulped down vials of DNA and the sort?
Think about it, how different is it from telling your infant child to not put its fingers in the electricity socket, to not eat detergent, to not drink 'dad's special water'?

Perhaps. Perhaps the Übermensch is just another word for the Buddha; who is unattached to the world and considered the realisation of man.
That's where he derived Nihilism from, anyway.

Mind you Buddha means awake.
Ironic, with the 'woke' buzzword flying around, don't you think?

On the side, where do you lay the cornerstone of the Apollonian time, to consider what is pre and post Apollonian?

The soul persists in scientific operations - it's just been replaced by the word 'cognition'. Why? Well, why can I ingest and intake and devour and dine and so on?

When I look at the Caesar, I see the pillar of a community; as such, I don't see how one anchored down to his community, which is mainly commoners, is the Übermensch.
Unless I've misread - Caesar is the rope between the Barbarian and the Übermensch; being still tied down to a creed.

Which going back to Anarchy, means the Anarchist is dysfunctional as Anarchy is a creed.
It's ironic, but evident in Proudhon's writing, like in that of the 'atheist' that he didn't crave Anarchy despite purportedly denying everything. He wants a specific order, but an order nonetheless.

So, you'd be right that in practice the Übermensch is a God-King, rather than an Anarchist.
But it's ironic, because there's no difference - as neither is above the law, even if it's just because they constitute it.

There's an old folk-tale here, about a child who did not want to wash his hands because they would just get dirty again and his parents decided not to eat, because they would just get hungry again. So the child, realising his folly, started washing his hands.

The idea of the Übermensch is not new.

Sure, I won't argue it sounds like a stretch. But the point of the Übermensch is one unbound from a creed - which is by definition the Anarchist.

I don't see the Caesar as one such. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out.

Paganism is ritual. It's all about having, rather than being.
The creed of the Catholic Church and Wicca is the same creed; go and make a comparison for yourself.

This is how a Shaman operates: Substance, sacrifice, communication, achievement.
You get some milk, you add some stuff to the milk to ferment it, you taste the fermented milk and then you sell it as yogurt.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that science is pagan, if you've read any of the creation stories where the 'gods' teach men to read and write and craft.

Paganism has to do with ritual; something that was thrown away by early Christian, Buddhist and Taoist tradition - as unapparent as it may seem now.

The Catholic Church is pagan. There was no trinity proposed by Jesus or his disciples and he certainly didn't ask for temples to be built in his name.
Early Christian tradition holds to, like the other two aforementioned, that man himself is the temple of God - and should worship in spirit.

John 4:24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

The last supper was not an indoctrination and baptism does not involve being dunked in a pool of water.
These two traditions are pagan, since the days of yore.

And when Nietzsche rants off against Christianity, he does so against the Catholic Church and it's influence in everyday life. Hence my previous comment.

And why is his Übermensch, the same as Proudhon's?
"I stand ready to negotiate, but I want no part of laws: I acknowledge none; I protest against every order with which some authority may feel pleased on the basis of some alleged necessity to over-rule my free will. Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government."
That's why.

What Nietzsche does is echo out against the pagan westerner and his superfluous behaviour. What he craves is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's anarchic-justice; that's his Übermensch, the man above the law.

When he says 'God is dead, and we have killed him', he's talking about a con - how God has been killed, through misrepresentation; like the poisoned apple from Sneewittchen.

:confused:

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa

Then from today start calling your father 'motherfucker' because he fucked your mother. Start calling every father 'motherfucker' under your pretense and let's see how far you make it.

Don't reply if you're going to repeat the same shameless lie.

Pan is not a deity, let alone one of everything. Pan is like Enkidu; a wild-man, a half-breed.

It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world. — creativesoul

The invention of pens is no different from the discovery of pens.

Man's creative capability is dependent on what is possible, and what is possible is dependent on what is.

Every invention is within the confines of the game and was not brought about by humans.
It was played out by humans.

I looked over all three posts, and saw nothing indicative of motive.
Point it out for me, if you will.

Pens are existentially dependent upon humans. — creativesoul

Pens are not existentially dependent on humans.
And you can't prove there isn't a world where pens exist but humans don't, and you can't prove it isn't possible - if you want to go that route.

Different uses for the same referent does not change the referent. — creativesoul

It does, when the referent is a part of your own perspective.
But on some pink sunglasses and your sky becomes pink.

Your graph shows nothing, but numbers.
Numbers don't matter without a motive.

I might agree, while I do incline towards a rejection of "man as the measure of all things", for argument's sake, I would have to be very clear about what we are talking about by identity to settle on one side or the other. — Merkwurdichliebe

Here's a simple proposition.

Someone who has only ever written with a pen, sees it as a writing implement.
Someone who has only ever been stabbed with a pen, sees it as a dangerous weapon.
It's the same pen - but it looks different from each side, just like how your back looks different from your front.

We discover things that exist in their entirety prior to our discovery. Screwdrivers are products of our own manufacture. — creativesoul

They're not. They're something that exists, regardless if humans figured it out or not.
The sculpture inside the rock exists, even if you don't carve it out.

And yet the statistics clearly show that countries where guns are controlled or forbidden have less gun crime (obvious? :wink: ). — Pattern-chaser

So, that's why Brazil with all of its gun crime wants to fix the issue by loosening gun laws, right?
And Iceland, with all of its firearms, is peaceful - but that's an anomaly, right?

Stop beating the poor dead horse, please.

There are not appreciably more stabbings when there are no guns around. — Pattern-chaser

There are, when the culture of warmongering has not dissipated.
Please, I implore you to remove guns and see the outcome for yourself; I've seen it.

Guns make it easy and convenient to kill, quickly and efficiently, in anger, before one has the time for sober consideration. — Pattern-chaser

Picking up a rock from the ground and smacking a passerby in the back of the head with it is an easy and convenient way to kill, quick and efficient, in anger, before one has the time for sober consideration.
Also, stabbing someone in the throat.

But you don't see it, so out of sight out of mind, right? :roll:

No, they won't. The simple fact borne out by empirical evidence is that the more powerful the weapon the more enhanced the affects of aggression applied to it. — Baden

So, you're going to ignore all history up to the point when men started firing rocks with gunpowder instead of slings?

And it appears to me anyway, that the really powerful weapons - like nuclear ones, actually subdued human aggression, out of fear for the ramifications.
The simple fact, if there is one, is that the more powerful the weapon - the more enhanced the effects of aggression might be when applied to it.

I don't see how guns are dangerous without a finger to pull the trigger.
Tie a bunch of guns to a tree and tell me the death toll.

the majority of homicides in the USA are not from strangers involved in home invasion. Family and 'friends,' living in the same domicile kill each other far more frequently, by a factor of 2:1, and most frequently husbands shoot their wives. — ernestm

And here we go back to square one, when I asked - why do you think this is a US problem, because husbands kill their wives without guns anyway. It happens here, everyday.

When Cain killed Abel, that was due to this weapon of choice, right? Not due to his seething hatred for his brother, right?
And this story, mind you, is present all around the globe.

It's identity and what it is identified as, are different - because they can overlap, wouldn't you agree?

It's not. It's a human discovery.

By the way...read that stuff you quoted above in context.. — Frank Apisa

in context of what I, Frank Apisa, want to hear — Frank Apisa

The god will tell you exactly what you want to hear. — Frank Apisa

what I, Frank Apisa, want to hear. — Frank Apisa

Feel free to continue your make-believe monologue. :ok:
But even that's asking too much from you, after all, you believe you don't believe, right? :snicker:

Nay. The screwdriver is not existentially dependent on anything but existence. Its being perceived however, may be dependent on humans.

But they are. ... The ones that aren't deliberate, of course. — Pattern-chaser

Of course, not only those - but all of them, as shooters care less for the lives of those they intend to shoot, hence they are careless.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people? It's a tired old cliche, true as far as it goes, but incomplete and dismissive of the real world. — Pattern-chaser

Give your dog a gun and tell me the death toll.

Those potential weapons that have no other use but as weapons — Pattern-chaser

There is nothing that can't be anything but a weapon.
That's a very convoluted presumption which again you're trying to scapegoat in to avoiding responsibility.

And since we cannot control our deadly urges, but we want to — Pattern-chaser

See, I've never heard of someone wanting to not kill someone, but killing him anyway, much as I've never heard of someone who wanted pizza but got salad instead.
What you're voicing through this statement is a lack of commitment; it's like kids who want to work part time and earn a huge salary right off the bat.

That is the rationale behind banning guns, and it's what America must do if shootings are to be minimised. — Pattern-chaser

Sure, less guns equates to less shootings. But are the shootings the issue or the homicides?
Like I've explicitly told you, with or without guns, people will kill and not less.

Or don't bother, if you're happy with the level of gun crime in your country? — Pattern-chaser

My country has a low gun crime toll and yet is proportionally worse in every aspect of the justice department. When every house legally possessed firearms, crime was at an all time low.

Funnily, crime back then and now is not connected to guns, but to education.
Back when people had guns, people were far more disciplined.
Now they don't have guns, but kill each other on the daily, as they've degenerated.

Driving at high speed when the road conditions don't permit it is careless driving. It's not one or the other; one is (sometimes) the other. — Pattern-chaser

The road conditions never permit high speed, because it reduces reaction time and crashes happen at the last second.
Stopping distances is the first thing they teach you, when you take Driver's Ed.

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind. — Frank Apisa

2 Esdras 4

1 Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered 2 and said to me, "Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?" 3 Then I said, "Yes, my lord." And he replied to me, "I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4 If you can solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil." 5 I said, "Speak, my lord." And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past." 6 I answered and said, "Who of those that have been born can do that, that you should ask me about such things?"

It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa

Exodus 4

13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses

You want to go over that again? :clap:

It's not delirium, genius. They argued with God's intermediaries against God's intentions.

Intentions that lead to the wiping of civilisations.

Moses never wanted the Exodus, neither did Jesus want to be crucified.