It relates because it undercuts the language of purpose regarding the production of great people in the other Schopenhauer quote.

In the general discussion surrounding how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. When I read him, I hear the following challenge:

"Who gave you a promissory note that assures you that this all makes sense? Talk to Hegel, if that is your bag."

Well, that collection of thoughts is at odds with Nietzsche saying the following about will as expressed by Schopenhauer:

Aftereffects of the most ancient religiosity. - Every thought·
less person supposes that will alone is effective; that willing is
something simple, a brute datum, underivable, and intelligible
by itself. He is convinced that when he does something-strike
something, for example-it is he that strikes, and that he did
strike because be willed it. He does not see any problem here;
the feeling of will seems sufficient to him not only for the
assumption of cause and effect but also for the faith that he
understands their relationship. He knows nothing of the mechanism
of what happened and of the hundredfold fine work that
needs to be done to bring about the strike, or of the incapacity
of the will in itself to do even the tiniest part of this work. The
will is for him a magically effective force; the faith in the will
as the cause of effects is the faith in magically effective forces.
Now man believed originally that wherever he saw something
happen, a will had to be at work in the background as a cause,
and a personal, willing being. Any notion of mechanics was
far from his mind. But since man believed, for immense periods
of time. only in persons (and not in substances, forces, things,
and so forth), the faith in cause and effect became for him the
basic faith that he applies wherever anything happens-and this
is what he still does instinctively: it is an atavism of the most
ancie11t origin.
The propositions, "no effect without a cause.'' "every effect
in tum a cause appears as generalizations of much more
limited propositions: "no effecting without wiling"; "one can
have an effect only on beings that will"; "no suffering of an
effect is ever pure and without consequences, but all suffering
consists of an agitation of the will" (toward action. resistance,
revenge, retribution). But in the pre-history of humanity both
sets.of propositions were identical: the former were not gen-
realizations of the latter, but the latter were commentaries on
the former.
, When Schoenbauer assumed that all that has being is only
a willing, he enthroned a primeval mythology. It seems that he
never even attempted an analysis of the will because, like
everybody else, he had faith in the simplicity and immediacy of
all willing-while willing is actually a mechanism. that is so
well-practiced that it all but escapes the observing eye.
Against him I posit these propositions: First, for will come
into being an idea of pleasure and displeasure is needed. Second, when a strong stimulus is experienced as pleasure or displeasure, this depends on the interpretation of the intellect
which, to be sure, generally does this work without rising to
our consciousness: one and the same stimulus can be interpreted as pleasure or displeasure. Third, it is only in intellectual
beings that pleasure, displeasure. and will are to be found; the
vast majority of organisms has nothing of the sort. — The Gay Science, 127, Translated by W. Kaufman

It has been noted by Kaufmann and others how this doesn't square with the claims about N's idea of the will to power.

Yes, I see how the Genealogy of Morals quote ties into the 'ethics of power.'
But from where do you see the process being about 'producing great human beings?'

How do you relate these commentaries to the clear rejection of Christian belief put forward by Nietzsche? Do you have a set of quotes by Nietzsche that supports these ideas?

That is some kind of glitch I cannot remove. No link there.

I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there. But I take your point that I am asking everyone to read all of Nietzsche to understand some part of it.

My question about: "Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'" is still germane.in the text of TSZ. The text seems more focused upon how to survive difficult conditions.

Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'

Nietzsche went to much effort to demonstrate that such a measure was tied directly to sets of values that were not shared amongst all.

I am not sure about McPherson's contention that the treatment of the Saint was a function of changing views N had of the 'ethics of power.' The view of Christianity as a suicide pact was developed through earlier and later views as depicted in The Gay Science, which includes writings before and after TSZ. So the following statement regarding saints strikes me as applicable whether the agency of the figure was something that served a narrative or not:

On the critique of saints.- To have a virtue, must one really
wish to have it in its most brutal form-as the Christian saints
wished-and needed-it? They could endure life only by
thinking that the sight of their virtue would engender self-
contempt in anyone who saw them. But a virtue with that
effect I call brutal. — The Gay Science, 150, Translated by W Kaufman,

I like it because it calls out what I too reject.:

I know these godlike men all too well: they want one to have faith in them, and doubt to be sin. All too well I also know which they have most faith. Verily, it is not in afterworlds and redemptive drops of blood, but in the body, that they too have most faith; and their body is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them, and gladly would they shed their skins. Therefore, they listen to the preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds.
Listen rather, my brothers, to the voice of the healthy body; that is a more honest and pure voice: More honestly and purely speaks the healthy body that is perfect and perpendicular: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth. — On Otherworldly, Thus Spoke Zarathrrusta, translated by Walter Kaufmann

A couple of strong themes in Nietzsche work against the arbitrary quality of narratives suggested here.

The genealogy of morals may not make them necessary in a proof by means of universal law but does claim the logic of reproduction. The children reflect the parents. You come from a place.

The use of the idea of perspective to differentiate expressions is not an abandonment of objective criteria. One could object that it is too much of the opposite of that. The locations have a relationship to each other that becomes more determined than the ones who call out from those places. As a philologist, Nietzsche sees the words as prior to the speaker unless proven otherwise.

If you are keen to discuss the work, perhaps you could start with the beginning passages and give your impressions.
Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum. I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large.

I think the work of Jacob Gorender: Colonial Slavery, does an excellent job of challenging Hegel's view while recognizing the importance of it. It is ironic that many challengers are doing the anti-thesis process being discussed.

Apart from that work, there are interesting takes from a range of political inclinations on the role of the 'overseers' in particular forms of administration, that is to say, the role of the slave replicating the condition of the master in their own existence. As an example of contrast, one can read of the dynamic in Ralph Ellison and in György Lukács without claiming they ultimately agree about what is happening.

Yes, I recognize my statement is provocative.
On the other hand, have you read the text? It is very short.

We know the Paul message because that is what became the church. The focus upon the end of days was paramount. You were either in the salvation life raft or you were not.

The emphasis upon being who you truly are in the gospel of Thomas is not an outright objection to the Pauline view. But it is not a great fit otherwise. If one has the source of what is worthy in their own being, looking for it is different from a war between one cosmos or another, as imagined by Paul.

I do think the message is about the "the inverse of the popular belief that being wise leads to financial wealth and the idea that those who are rich are poor in spirit." That is consonant with many other passages in the New Testament.
What is different about Gospel of Thomas is the emphasis upon betraying one's own being as the danger involved. The proximity between what can kill you or give you life.

I get that. A big part of the success of the Republican Party has been getting people out to vote no matter what is on the ballot. I don't know how that relates to what the OP proposes.

These assessors, thinking they “have it down”, lack the insight, to see, their entire life has been a compromise of integrity, values, ethics: bereft of any standards that a true gnostic will hold themselves to. living an entire life essentially of failures (various kinds) stepped in deceit, lack of love/affection, consideration, violence (all kinds : a life plagued by all kinds of insecurities and failed attempts to mask it… — skyblack

So, this 'true gnostic', are you one of that kind?

What?

What is the formula? How is that not a vote for fascism?

Lame response.

I don't know what I am reacting to.
You cloak yourself in mystery.

Or is all of this conformity to the highest degree? You have confirmed to everything. Your society, to ideologies, to your flag, to religions ( or its opposite), to narratives, to your philosophies, to your world views, to your prejudices and biases, to the apathy of your old age, to your lack of integrity, to your experiences, to your knowledge. — skyblack

Your hand sweeps broadly against your perceived opponents. You seem to claim a gnosis of your own against all others.

The US does not have a 'none of the above' option in their slates. Some states are trying forms of ranked voting to alter how run-off elections work.

How it is done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCpTi0EtbU

In the Gospel of Thomas, self-knowledge is related to poverty and wealth. Whether you follow a denomination or not, this idea is a powerful player in the way we view outcomes. Can my understanding change my fate?

He did it lonely in the darkness of his job staying apart from television or looks. It was a solemn and respectful act. This was the main critical action against politics I have ever seen in my life. — javi2541997

And now this private decision is being given public notice. That is a political message.

Then how do you see the withdrawal from the legal right to vote as making change more possible?

If the decision is not connected to a means of change, is not the refusal an acceptance of the service you find so revolting?

So it could be said that refusing to vote is tantamount to refusing to sign over our lives to other men. — NOS4A2

If that is what is said, it is a very private statement. Other men will gladly accept your silence as submission.

If everybody withdraws from the selection of representatives and agents of the state, how is that an opportunity for change? Or do you wish for a war of all against all? That condition would guarantee a change but not much choice.

I started with a number of religious influences but understood them mostly in terms of psychology. That is to say, it was a desire to understand my experience as my experience.

My first encounters with philosophical writings began the wonder of where this experience was happening. So, I think Aristotle is right about how natural it is to wonder about our circumstances.

What is 'natural' beyond that is difficult to comprehend. I want things I am ill equipped to provide.

His idea that one cannot really say anything of "sense" when it comes to ethics, values, and aesthetics, is something that cannot be discussed, is to me, not radical but simply the formal version of the common man's idea of "Well, that's just your opinion, man". — schopenhauer1

The emphasis that agency is not given is what I understood by the separation. As a theory of language, do we learn it as starting with units or are they resolved into focus over time?

I figure it is a fair question that requires it being asked for its own sake, if you will.

I am not sure how to distinguish between willful ending of life from choosing to not defend life. I have one old friend who fought to the last and another who did not. They are both dead now.

Thomas is an odd factor. To some degree, he is anti-federalist about many of these issues. He wants a constitutional restriction upon what can be granted as rights.by states. He seems to be working on having rights for women to be bracketed the way the Hatch decision for gun rights superseded local control.

Yes, sending the matter to the states permits different laws in different places. But the legality of laws is a big part of what the Supreme Court has to figure out. Now that all of the precedents built from Roe vs Wade have been struck down, we don't know how far the Court will go. Or to be precise, they don't know far they can go.

That's what happens in this forum, when I point out the falsities which are currently abundant in mathematics and physics. People here say, the principles serve their purposes, so unless I have something better to offer, forget about criticizing those conventions. But since the principles serve their purposes, no one is inclined to look for better ones. Therefore it is necessary to first recognize the principles as bad, and destroy the bad principles, thereby providing the necessary conditions for the development of better ones. The phoenix rises from the ashes. — Metaphysician Undercover

What does destroying a bad principle look like? I understand skepticism. I get the idea that we live in our time of ideas. But what does destroying a bad principle look like?

As I understand it, the exclusion of other views of the divine characterizes the Pauline version of Christianity.
So, the question of what might be seen as included has the problem of being cast out at the beginning..

I rewatched Ivan the Terrible recently. The language is closer to Putin's than even Stalin's.

With Eisenstein, of course, it is all mixed up with each other.

I think restraint is a part of it. One has so many more options if one can slow down the reactions.
A lot of inventing is about giving oneself more time. A situation seems impossible, and we tread water and combine ideas to see the problem a different way. Patience as a result of urgent demands.

That aspect is a feature in parenting as a model. It goes both ways.

I wonder if the matter of history was the bone of contention in the idea of 'structure.' For instance, one could be skeptical of the progressions Hegel described and not claim the result was a matter of pure chance.

What Chalmer is trying to do as a scientist does not dissolve the use of the "I." Isn't the immediacy of experience a given quality in the discussion?

We have other experiences that serve as evidence in scientific inquiry. For instance, when we try to understand why certain things hurt, it doesn't make the hurt less like hurt to treat it as a result of a process. There is a considerable difference between being able to explain some of a phenomenon and explaining it away.