The whole point behind Thus Spoke Zarathustra is that it's a Dithyramb, which means you self-abnegate and don the masks of the many characters within, experience the rhyme and rhythm, flow, and tempo of its style, experience the tone of the scene and how they shift throughout the symbolic imagery of the entire constellations of thought throughout it.

The true power of the Dionysian way of life is that it's capable of donning the masks of many through the process of self-abnegation, whereas the Apollonian is the individuation of these masks through a certain tyranny in self-mastery.

Just reading a sterilized analysis of Thus Spoke Zarathustra is missing the point.

All things profound love the mask, and this is why Nietzsche declares the Greeks were Superficial out of their Profundity.

Good, and I ought to keep telling you you'll fail then to push you harder. Thats how a one up attitude works.

sediments of past judgements. Those past judgements being inaccurate.

Aye.

No, meaning your curiosity to learn was limited in comparison with your need to try and one up someone. So you clearly have a limit rather than an interest in learning. At least Learning about Nietzsche. It's quite apparent you're fond of your own inaccuracies on Nietzsche's philosophy. So stick with your inaccuracies, and just know Nietzsche's philosophy isn't for you.

challenges don't mean limits.

that depends on the person. Those who thrive under the compulsions of external values ought to live under a system of external values.

Those with their own strong organizing drive would find living under an external value system to be stifling.

The point being grow into the plant you're meant to be.

Nihilists for example have low organizing drives and want no gods nor masters....

Very Nietzschean of you to encourage quitting. :lol: — praxis

You even saying this shows you think one must create themselves... it's why I harped on that point.

As I posted above, it's painfully obvious you didn't read it, or you failed to understand... Nietzsche's philosophy just isn't in your capacity, it's why you struggle with it so much, attempting to struggle through it is ignoring your higher drives.

In these matters great wisdom, perhaps even the highest wisdom, comes into activity: in these circumstances, in which nosce teipsum would be the sure road to ruin, forgetting one's self, misunderstanding one's self... Meanwhile the organising "idea," which is destined to become master, grows and continues to grow into the depths,—it begins to command, it leads you slowly back from your deviations and aberrations, it prepares individual qualities and capacities, which one day will make themselves felt as indispensable to the whole of your task — Nietzsche

Nosce te ipsum, know yourself by knowing your limits. And you apparently don't know yours.

It is actually.

Jist drop Nietzsche, you obviously have too hard a time understanding him.

More or less I don't give a fuck what you didn't say, I'm explaining will to power to you, not asserting wtf you said. And you're too dense to pick it up.

You got this insecurity about failing Aesthetic Socratism.

You seem to be saying that wtp is my feeling better about it if it — praxis

Errr, yo dude, you do you. But that's not what I said at all.

WtP is obeying the tyranny of your highest drives that differentiate you into you. There is no existentialism to it at all. You dont "create" yourself, you simply obey the tyranny that is you. If your highest drive is inherently destructive then you can sublimate it into another drive. Reconcile it to something in the same vein hence tragedy was born out of the Dionysian destructive drives being sublimated in the Apollonian order.

whatever that means

Here's what you said

Does anyone feel better about the Nietzschean notion of power—embodying it as a lifestyle? — praxis

Which consequently isn't you saying you don't think WtP is defined by how you feel about.

It's you asking if people feel better about Nietzsche's notion of it...

And yeah, if a person understands the concept intuitively without reading Nietzsche or even after reading Nietzsche I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who prefer living to their strongest drives. Rather than living to some political dogma.

It's about living to your internal values rather than external values.

We see this more and more today with people yearning to embrace their own internal drives. In sex, in social, in academics. People dropping out of the "thou shalt" train to live towards "I will"

I guess I'm just hella confused about this:

I would feel better about it if lead to greater meaning (creativity, self-overcoming, and life affirmation) than the conventional definition of power. I can’t say how I feel more plainly than that. — praxis

Because that's essentially what will to power is...

All life is will to power, and thus the differentiating egg/seed etc etc is an example of it.

Check out BGE 188. Which details that tyranny of forces that embodies even language and how the long obedience in the same direction always reveals something worth living for. This isn't about "creating yourself" through picking yourself up by the bootstraps... this is about understanding the tyranny of your highest drives that differentiate your existence.

From Ecce Homo

At this point I can no longer evade a direct answer to the question, how one becomes what one is. And in giving it, I shall have to touch upon that masterpiece in the art of self-preservation, which is selfishness. ... Granting that one's life-task—the determination and the fate of one's life-task—greatly exceeds the average measure of such things, nothing more dangerous could be conceived than to come face to face with one's self by the side of this life-task. The fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is. From this standpoint even the blunders of one's life have their own meaning and value, the temporary deviations and aberrations, the moments of hesitation and of modesty, the earnestness wasted upon duties which lie outside the actual life-task. In these matters great wisdom, perhaps even the highest wisdom, comes into activity: in these circumstances, in which nosce teipsum would be the sure road to ruin, forgetting one's self, misunderstanding one's self, belittling one's self, narrowing one's self, and making one's self mediocre, amount to reason itself. Expressed morally, to love one's neighbour and to live for others and for other things may be the means of protection employed to maintain the hardest kind of egoism. This is the exceptional case in which I, contrary to my principle and conviction, take the side of the altruistic instincts; for here they are concerned in subserving selfishness and self-discipline. The whole surface of consciousness—for consciousness is a surface—must be kept free from any one of the great imperatives. Beware even of every striking word, of every striking attitude! They are all so many risks which the instinct runs of "understanding itself" too soon. Meanwhile the organising "idea," which is destined to become master, grows and continues to grow into the depths,—it begins to command, it leads you slowly back from your deviations and aberrations, it prepares individual qualities and capacities, which one day will make themselves felt as indispensable to the whole of your task,—step by step it cultivates all the serviceable faculties, before it ever whispers a word concerning the dominant task, the "goal," the "object," and the "meaning" of it all. Looked at from this standpoint my life is simply amazing. For the task of transvaluing values, more capacities were needful perhaps than could well be found side by side in one individual; and above all, antagonistic capacities which had to be free from the mutual strife and destruction which they involve. An order of rank among capacities; distance; the art of separating without creating hostility; to refrain from confounding things; to keep from reconciling things; to possess enormous multifariousness and yet to be the reverse of chaos—all this was the first condition, the long secret work, and the artistic mastery of my instinct. Its superior guardianship manifested itself with such exceeding strength, that not once did I ever dream of what was growing within me—until suddenly all my capacities were ripe, and one day burst forth in all the perfection of their highest bloom. I cannot remember ever having exerted myself, I can point to no trace of struggle in my life; I am the reverse of a heroic nature. To "will" something, to "strive" after something, to have an "aim" or a "desire" in my mind—I know none of these things from experience. Even at this moment I look out upon my future—a broad future!—as upon a calm sea: no sigh of longing makes a ripple on its surface. I have not the slightest wish that anything should be otherwise than it is: I myself would not be otherwise.... But in this matter I have always been the same. I have never had a desire. A man who, after his four-and-fortieth year, can say that he has never bothered himself about honours, women, or money!—not that they did not come his way.... It was thus that I became one day a University Professor—I had never had the remotest idea of such a thing; for I was scarcely four-and-twenty years of age. In the same way, two years previously, I had one day become a philologist, in the sense that my first philological work, my start in every way, was expressly obtained by my master Ritschl for publication in his Rheinisches Museum.[4] (Ritschl—and I say it in all reverence—was the only genial scholar that I have ever met. He possessed that pleasant kind of depravity which distinguishes us Thuringians, and which makes even a German sympathetic—even in the pursuit of truth we prefer to avail ourselves of roundabout ways. In saying this I do not mean to underestimate in any way my Thuringian brother, the intelligent Leopold von Ranke....)

The more contrasting forces within... meaning that there are tons of forces stacking up in rank order. The highest of which will be so strong that they define you. That is if you're not sickened on lazy peace and cowardly compromise, attempting to quell the war within.

This is why ploticizing over those who are self aware is such a crock of shit, they are differtiating into that tyranny of their highest drives. Through living the best life they know how. Through a style of innocence in their instincts.

The will to power isn't about Coveting power.

Birth of Tragedy 12

Before we name this other spectator, let us pause here a moment in order to recall our own impression, as previously described, of the discordant and incommensurable elements in the nature of Æschylean tragedy. Let us think of our own astonishment at the chorus and the tragic hero of that type of tragedy, neither of which we could reconcile with our practices any more than with tradition—till we rediscovered this duplexity itself as the origin and essence of Greek tragedy, as the expression of two interwoven artistic impulses, the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

To separate this primitive and all-powerful Dionysian element from tragedy, and to build up a new and purified form of tragedy on the basis of a non-Dionysian art, morality, and conception of things—such is the tendency of Euripides which now reveals itself to us in a clear light.

In a myth composed in the eve of his life, Euripides himself most urgently propounded to his contemporaries the question as to the value and signification of this tendency. Is the Dionysian entitled to exist at all? Should it not be forcibly rooted out of the Hellenic soil? Certainly, the poet tells us, if only it were possible: but the god Dionysus is too powerful; his most intelligent adversary—like Pentheus in the "Bacchæ"—is unwittingly enchanted by him, and in this enchantment meets his fate. The judgment of the two old sages, Cadmus and Tiresias, seems to be also the judgment of the aged poet: that the reflection of the wisest individuals does not overthrow old popular traditions, nor the perpetually propagating worship of Dionysus, that in fact it behoves us to display at least a diplomatically cautious concern in the presence of such strange forces: where however it is always possible that the god may take offence at such lukewarm participation, and finally change the diplomat—in this case Cadmus—into a dragon. This is what a poet tells us, who opposed Dionysus with heroic valour throughout a long life—in order finally to wind up his career with a glorification of his adversary, and with suicide, like one staggering from giddiness, who, in order to escape the horrible vertigo he can no longer endure, casts himself from a tower. This tragedy—the Bacchæ—is a protest against the practicability of his own tendency; alas, and it has already been put into practice! The surprising thing had happened: when the poet recanted, his tendency had already conquered. Dionysus had already been scared from the tragic stage, and in fact by a demonic power which spoke through Euripides. Even Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the deity that spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether new-born demon, called Socrates. This is the new antithesis: the Dionysian and the Socratic, and the art-work of Greek tragedy was wrecked on it. What if even Euripides now seeks to comfort us by his recantation? It is of no avail: the most magnificent temple lies in ruins. What avails the lamentation of the destroyer, and his confession that it was the most beautiful of all temples? And even that Euripides has been changed into a dragon as a punishment by the art-critics of all ages—who could be content with this wretched compensation?

Let us now approach this Socratic tendency with which Euripides combated and vanquished Æschylean tragedy.

We must now ask ourselves, what could be the ulterior aim of the Euripidean design, which, in the highest ideality of its execution, would found drama exclusively on the non-Dionysian? What other form of drama could there be, if it was not to be born of the womb of music, in the mysterious twilight of the Dionysian? Only the dramatised epos: in which Apollonian domain of art the tragic effect is of course unattainable. It does not depend on the subject-matter of the events here represented; indeed, I venture to assert that it would have been impossible for Goethe in his projected "Nausikaa" to have rendered tragically effective the suicide of the idyllic being with which he intended to complete the fifth act; so extraordinary is the power of the epic-Apollonian representation, that it charms, before our eyes, the most terrible things by the joy in appearance and in redemption through appearance. The poet of the dramatised epos cannot completely blend with his pictures any more than the epic rhapsodist. He is still just the calm, unmoved embodiment of Contemplation whose wide eyes see the picture before them. The actor in this dramatised epos still remains intrinsically rhapsodist: the consecration of inner dreaming is on all his actions, so that he is never wholly an actor.

How, then, is the Euripidean play related to this ideal of the Apollonian drama? Just as the younger rhapsodist is related to the solemn rhapsodist of the old time. The former describes his own character in the Platonic "Ion" as follows: "When I am saying anything sad, my eyes fill with tears; when, however, what I am saying is awful and terrible, then my hair stands on end through fear, and my heart leaps." Here we no longer observe anything of the epic absorption in appearance, or of the unemotional coolness of the true actor, who precisely in his highest activity is wholly appearance and joy in appearance. Euripides is the actor with leaping heart, with hair standing on end; as Socratic thinker he designs the plan, as passionate actor he executes it. Neither in the designing nor in the execution is he an artist pure and simple. And so the Euripidean drama is a thing both cool and fiery, equally capable of freezing and burning; it is impossible for it to attain the Apollonian, effect of the epos, while, on the other hand, it has severed itself as much as possible from Dionysian elements, and now, in order to act at all, it requires new stimulants, which can no longer lie within the sphere of the two unique art-impulses, the Apollonian and the Dionysian. The stimulants are cool, paradoxical thoughts, in place of Apollonian intuitions—and fiery passions—in place Dionysean ecstasies; and in fact, thoughts and passions very realistically copied, and not at all steeped in the ether of art.

Accordingly, if we have perceived this much, that Euripides did not succeed in establishing the drama exclusively on the Apollonian, but that rather his non-Dionysian inclinations deviated into a naturalistic and inartistic tendency, we shall now be able to approach nearer to the character æsthetic Socratism. supreme law of which reads about as follows: "to be beautiful everything must be intelligible," as the parallel to the Socratic proposition, "only the knowing is one virtuous." With this canon in his hands Euripides measured all the separate elements of the drama, and rectified them according to his principle: the language, the characters, the dramaturgic structure, and the choric music. The poetic deficiency and retrogression, which we are so often wont to impute to Euripides in comparison with Sophoclean tragedy, is for the most part the product of this penetrating critical process, this daring intelligibility. The Euripidian prologue may serve us as an example of the productivity of this, rationalistic method. Nothing could be more opposed to the technique of our stage than the prologue in the drama of Euripides. For a single person to appear at the outset of the play telling us who he is, what precedes the action, what has happened thus far, yea, what will happen in the course of the play, would be designated by a modern playwright as a wanton and unpardonable abandonment of the effect of suspense. Everything that is about to happen is known beforehand; who then cares to wait for it actually to happen? —considering, moreover, that here there is not by any means the exciting relation of a predicting dream to a reality taking place later on. Euripides speculated quite differently. The effect of tragedy never depended on epic suspense, on the fascinating uncertainty as to what is to happen now and afterwards: but rather on the great rhetoro-lyric scenes in which the passion and dialectics of the chief hero swelled to a broad and mighty stream. Everything was arranged for pathos, not for action: and whatever was not arranged for pathos was regarded as objectionable. But what interferes most with the hearer's pleasurable satisfaction in such scenes is a missing link, a gap in the texture of the previous history. So long as the spectator has to divine the meaning of this or that person, or the presuppositions of this or that conflict of inclinations and intentions, his complete absorption in the doings and sufferings of the chief persons is impossible, as is likewise breathless fellow-feeling and fellow-fearing. The Æschyleo-Sophoclean tragedy employed the most ingenious devices in the first scenes to place in the hands of the spectator as if by chance all the threads requisite for understanding the whole: a trait in which that noble artistry is approved, which as it were masks the inevitably formal, and causes it to appear as something accidental. But nevertheless Euripides thought he observed that during these first scenes the spectator was in a strange state of anxiety to make out the problem of the previous history, so that the poetic beauties and pathos of the exposition were lost to him. Accordingly he placed the prologue even before the exposition, and put it in the mouth of a person who could be trusted: some deity had often as it were to guarantee the particulars of the tragedy to the public and remove every doubt as to the reality of the myth: as in the case of Descartes, who could only prove the reality of the empiric world by an appeal to the truthfulness of God and His inability to utter falsehood. Euripides makes use of the same divine truthfulness once more at the close of his drama, in order to ensure to the public the future of his heroes; this is the task of the notorious deus ex machina. Between the preliminary and the additional epic spectacle there is the dramatico-lyric present, the "drama" proper.

Thus Euripides as a poet echoes above all his own conscious knowledge; and it is precisely on this account that he occupies such a notable position in the history of Greek art. With reference to his critico-productive activity, he must often have felt that he ought to actualise in the drama the words at the beginning of the essay of Anaxagoras: "In the beginning all things were mixed together; then came the understanding and created order." And if Anaxagoras with his "νοῡς" seemed like the first sober person among nothing but drunken philosophers, Euripides may also have conceived his relation to the other tragic poets under a similar figure. As long as the sole ruler and disposer of the universe, the νοῡς, was still excluded from artistic activity, things were all mixed together in a chaotic, primitive mess;—it is thus Euripides was obliged to think, it is thus he was obliged to condemn the "drunken" poets as the first "sober" one among them. What Sophocles said of Æschylus, that he did what was right, though unconsciously, was surely not in the mind of Euripides: who would have admitted only thus much, that Æschylus, because he wrought unconsciously, did what was wrong. So also the divine Plato speaks for the most part only ironically of the creative faculty of the poet, in so far as it is not conscious insight, and places it on a par with the gift of the soothsayer and dream-interpreter; insinuating that the poet is incapable of composing until he has become unconscious and reason has deserted him. Like Plato, Euripides undertook to show to the world the reverse of the "unintelligent" poet; his æsthetic principle that "to be beautiful everything must be known" is, as I have said, the parallel to the Socratic "to be good everything must be known." Accordingly we may regard Euripides as the poet of æsthetic Socratism. Socrates, however, was that second spectator who did not comprehend and therefore did not esteem the Old Tragedy; in alliance with him Euripides ventured to be the herald of a new artistic activity. If, then, the Old Tragedy was here destroyed, it follows that æsthetic Socratism was the murderous principle; but in so far as the struggle is directed against the Dionysian element in the old art, we recognise in Socrates the opponent of Dionysus, the new Orpheus who rebels against Dionysus; and although destined to be torn to pieces by the Mænads of the Athenian court, yet puts to flight the overpowerful god himself, who, when he fled from Lycurgus, the king of Edoni, sought refuge in the depths of the ocean—namely, in the mystical flood of a secret cult which gradually overspread the earth.

I don’t disagree with you there. Especially in this day and age where hygienic products can literally combat that more effectively than clothing!

Doesnt Deleuze detail a thought like an event that is subject to various forces? A thought is like a transverse of connections across multiple machines desiring machines?

From Anti-Oedipus:

Every "object" presupposes the continuity of a flow; every flow, the fragmentation of the object. Doubtless each organ-machine interprets the entire world from the perspective of its own flux, from the point of view of the energy that flows from it: the eye interprets everything—speaking, understanding, shitting, fucking—in terms of seeing. But a connection with another machine is always established, along a transverse path, so that one machine interrupts the current of the other or "sees" its own current interrupted.

I'll dig up a few more.

Twilight of Idols has the 4 great errors concerning causality. Maybe something from there can help out, but good luck, should be an interesting OP once you flesh your thoughts out on it.

the whole reason they wear all those layers is to protect their beauty... there's a reason why so many of the men in the middle east have boils and cysts it's because the dirt is baked into a powder by the sun this powder is finer than any sand and it easily clogs pores. People forgot the utility of the dress code for religious codes.

I'm not sure if contingent mental pathways are the same for everyone so it's kinda hard to detail mental to mental. It's not like pool, where you're "slapping balls around" (as I like to detail it). This starts running into Quine. Even if you say one thought causes another, the reference of each thought is inscrutable, so we can’t pin down in general what the causation amounts to beyond the idiosyncratic modality of belief.

Funny enough, I started saying that while playing pool with my wife. Which is kinda a double entendre if you get my drift... though, I think William James details it more like a flow state? Kinda like what's occuring to me right now.

Thinking about your question-> not like playing pool-> slappin balls around -> thinking about the phrase I made up to make my wife laugh while playing pool-> thinking about that double entendre -> giggling like a child -> thinking about flow states....

In a sense we're each our own little closed system capable of reconciliation with others to share understanding.

Julian Jaynes has an interesting part in his book that you may find interesting towards your question.

Metaphor and Language

Let us speak of metaphor. The most fascinating property of language is its capacity to make metaphors. But what an understatement! For metaphor is not a mere extra trick of language, as it is so often slighted in the old schoolbooks on composition; it is the very constitutive ground of language. I am using metaphor here in its most general sense: the use of a term for one thing to describe another because of some kind of similarity between them or between their relations to other things. There are thus always two terms in a metaphor, the thing to be described, which I shall call the metaphrand, and the thing or relation used to elucidate it, which I shall call the metaphier. A metaphor is always a known metaphier operating on a less known metaphrand. I have coined these hybrid terms simply to echo multiplication where a multiplier operates on a multiplicand.

It is by metaphor that language grows. The common reply to the question “what is it?” is, when the reply is difficult or the experience unique, “well, it is like—.” In laboratory studies, both children and adults describing nonsense objects (or metaphrands) to others who cannot see them use extended metaphiers that with repetition become contracted into labels.2 This is the major way in which the vocabulary of language is formed. The grand and vigorous function of metaphor is the generation of new language as it is needed, as human culture becomes more and more complex.

A random glance at the etymologies of common words in a dictionary will demonstrate this assertion. Or take the naming of various fauna and flora in their Latin indicants, or even in their wonderful common English names, such as stag beetle, lady’s-slipper, darning needle, Queen Anne’s lace, or buttercup. The human body is a particularly generative metaphier, creating previously unspeakable distinctions in a throng of areas. The head of an army, table, page, bed, ship, household, or nail, or of steam or water; the face of a clock, cliff, card, or crystal; the eyes of needles, winds, storms, targets, flowers, or potatoes; the brow of a hill; the cheeks of a vise; the teeth of cogs or combs; the lips of pitchers, craters, augers; the tongues of shoes, board joints, or railway switches; the arm of a chair or the sea; the leg of a table, compass, sailor’s voyage, or cricket field; and so on and on. Or the foot of this page. Or the leaf you will soon turn. All of these concrete metaphors increase enormously our powers of perception of the world about us and our understanding of it, and literally create new objects. Indeed, language is an organ of perception, not simply a means of communication....

Wisdom is a style of perceiving things. Self awareness, for example, takes wisdom not intelligence.

You can learn calculus (intelligence) but not know how to apply it to the real world (wisdom). Just as you can read Nietzsche or Jung, but not know wtf they are talking about because there's a certain symbolic expression they use with metaphors that generally goes right over most people.

How well you can discern another philosopher's language game takes wisdom.

I wouldn't say bitter, at least not yet. The results of suffering from frustrations can manifest in quite a few different ways, some positive some negative.

Though let's put it like this, you came here projecting shame onto those who are pretty, including those insecure enough to buy a certain look. And you even tried pretending that "wisdom and integrity" wasn't the past few thousand years' obsession with "the good" since Plato, precisely because you're obsessing over beauty. To me this spells out that you have undigested internalizations. Undigested internalizations often turn into venom.

So you’re either not very studied in philosophy (not a bad thing), or if you are studied in philosophy you allowed this feeling to blind you. I'm an immoralist, I'll call it as I see it but not to employ shame or guilt. I invite you to read section 46 (XLVI) of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra the section is titled The Vision and the Enigma.

Read it as many times as it takes for the effect to dawn on you. Part one starts in a Skeptical tone which finishes in a Triumphant tone that gets one ready to attack the riddles of the Vision and the Enigma that Nietzsche presents in part 2. And who gives a damn if reality doesn't work the way in part 2 as Nietzsche details it in the Vision it's fictional story that symbolically speaks to intuition, not consciousness. In fact if you're already consciously aware of the effect because I told you, rather than you discovering the meanings of the Vision amd the Enigma for yourself, then I could completely ruin the effect for you.

So read it as many times as it takes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1998/pg1998-images.html#link2H_4_0053

What have you read from Nietzsche's yea-saying period and what have you read from Nietzsche's nay-saying period? Thus Spoke Zarathustra wont make a whole lot of sense or speak to your intuition until you have a decent handling of both branches.

Just as man is the rope between the animal and the Superman, Zarathustra is the chord between Nietzsche's yea-saying and nay-saying periods...

John 15:4-5
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

Just as Nietzsche details in Beyond Good and Evil 2, and in Birth of Tragedy 1:

For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life must be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire. It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps!

And from BoT we can see from his first Aphorism that the dual orbit exists in such a way that there is a bridge linking the two values together... hence why in the Prologue Zarathustra declares what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal (the goals are the branched ends of the values, the Left/Right, the Good/Evil, the Bad/Good, the Ignoble/Noble)

Man is the vine, the bridge, between the branches of his valuations. One does not exist without the other and both values ultimately stem from the creator of the values.

The bear fruit from Zarathustra one must abide in him, and to do so one must develop an understanding of both Nietzsche's yea-saying and nay-saying periods with a discerning eye.

From Gay Science:

Vademecum—Vadetecum.

Attracted by my style and talk
You'd follow, in my footsteps walk?
Follow yourself unswervingly,
So—careful!—shall you follow me.

I actually understand you, the signal strength is loud and clear. And I agree, both sides of the spectrum use it as a weapon against the other. Whereas some don't give a damn about the political nature of the movement, they are simply self aware, awake to their own demands on life, yet they're caught in the crosshairs in a way that alienates them from genuine and authentic interaction with those who have tried to weaponize self awareness as "woke," which is a very large portion of society on the left or right.

And you're right preaching diversity doesn't really do anything but create a prejudice for equality, how many people actually want to admit they are a dei hire/promotion? That their advantage comes from nothing important to the position? It's literally a way of fighting back against prejudice with prejudice and solves absolutely nothing. As you said it literally adds to the divide of us vs them.

That's cause you're here politicizing over other people's self awareness.

What would happen if people started demonizing your traits and qualities as trash and shit to be stamped out of society? Suddenly you would be the point of contention in the lives of others for simply living your life the best way that you know how.

There never will be an end of woke, it's the history of the fucking world... "we don't like X so fucking kill it!" Ressentiment at it's finest. The word woke is just a modern mask for people to discriminate against others.

The term woke was originally used in philosophy as in those who are self aware, as in those who don't slumber their lives away to the status quo of some falsified world. For those awake and aware of this falsified world.

There will always be people who are awake and aware of this falsified world we live in. You used to get burned at the steak for simply being awake and aware.

Now it's a bunch of lazy fucks not minding their own business, attempting to assert their objective dogshit upon others as if that's the burning at the steak.

Their life, their rules, not yours. Ya feel?

Lol, beauty is coveted because it is rare. There is a style SUPERFICIAL that is born from PROFOUNDITY. What does a body say about a "soul?" Much of a body tells us about the person. Whether they stuff too many calories into their gullet beyond their capacity for energy expenditure, whether they get too little in comparison with their energy expenditure, whether they're insecure about themselves and need cosmetic surgery. How good their hygiene is. Fashion sense adds to that, a person can be a walking piece of art, and there are artful types indeed. Selecting the right clothing enhances the superficial profundity or even highlights a sort of giving up. There's a lot one can tell about a person from their outward appearance.

What would life be like in a world where wisdom and personal integrity were the ideals that were instilled as the greatest good — unimportant

That's the history of the last 2000+ years lol. I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others.

well, I do agree with you that there is a sort of "hero worshipping" going on that elevates a criminal archetype. And Nietzsche does give a sort of hard praise to criminals in a sense that they are often well equipped to survive harsh conditions that occur once they get extradited from society. Conditions that would generally break a weaker man.

I've done some studying on Hip Hop and the Nihilism which can be found in Rap music. I've checled it from the academic side and straight from KRS-One's mouth.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238086364_I_See_Death_Around_the_Corner_Nihilism_in_Rap_Music

I'll have to go over some of this stuff again but like theres a bit of a nuance to what Gangsta Rap is all about, which is like they sing about the Nihilism they live and it resonates with others, but the whole goal is to go from Ganster to Rapper, to become a Master of Ceramonies... been pukled in multiple directions since rereading the initial post. But I'll try to keep up and delve back into some of the research I have done in the past.

It's my hypotheses that humanity is tired of being shackled, this existence we live... the historical pathway in which humanity developed... isn't divine providence... we live in a falsified world controlled by a few through codified bunk and manipulating of the masses in subtle ways.

Does anyone remember how easy it was to get laid when the internet became semi mainstream? I was a teenager, and it was like the anonymity of online and just asking up front you had 75% chance of a yes... a certain oppression that caused a repression of our own humanity was uplifted.

There are still places where polycules and the Dionysian orgies happen like The Crucible in DC. There was a sexual Renaissance that occured for nearly a decade, and then all the horror stories caught up to the collective unconscious of all the people gone missing and crazy shit that happened. The whole LGBTQ+ stemmed from that Renaissance.

The criminal represents a part of humanity that's taboo. And for some it represents a sort of freedom from the metaphysical chains that bind them.

The "Nietzschean Hero" isn't a "hero as per Nietzsche," it's a fictional hero inspired by Nietzsche. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fair enough, another recent one that people have been worshipping then is Judge Holden from Blood Meridian.

And yeah, I can see what you're talking about now. Let me go back through the OP with that in mind.

Let's get the story straight with Nietzsche, the only Hero to Nietzsche was the tragic hero. He repudiates Carlyle's Hero cult. Further still, Nietzsche doesn't glorify crime for the sake of crime, and thirdly, the Aristocratic and Slave are Typologies not Hierarchies.

But more importantly what is missed here is that Nietzsche advocates for all of human nature, and details that the systematic killing off of the Dionysian instincts in man is what has made man sick through cherishing cowardly compromise and lazy peace.

We can see from Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy onward that Nietzsche has this idea of the dual orbit of opposites that overcomes each other in their opposite inciting each other to higher and higher births, reconciling the worst of the destructive properties of both forces in a dual orbit over a mutual bridging. This becomes the very framework of Nietzsche's philosophy.

heterogeneous tendencies run parallel to each other, for the most part openly at variance, and continually inciting each other to new and more powerful births, to perpetuate in them the strife of this antithesis, which is but seemingly bridged over by their mutual term...

the Delphic god [(Apollo)], by a seasonably effected reconciliation, was now contented with taking the destructive arms from the hands of his powerful antagonist. This reconciliation marks the most important moment in the history of the Greek cult: wherever we turn our eyes we may observe the revolutions resulting from this event. It was the reconciliation of two antagonists, with the sharp demarcation of the boundary-lines to be thenceforth observed by each — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy

This is how Nietzsche details the height of Greek culture, through equal parts Apollonian and Dionysian forces. And the Height of the Human in general...

After Nietzsche's early experimental writing phase, Nietzsche sets up the Framework of his philosophy in this very manner which he details in

Ecce Homo:

BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL:"THE PRELUDE TO A PHILOSOPHY OF THE FUTURE"

1

My work for the years that followed was prescribed as distinctly as possible. Now that the yea-saying part of my life-task was accomplished there came the turn of the negative portion, both in word and deed: the transvaluation of all values that had existed hitherto, the great war,—the conjuring-up of the day when the fatal outcome of the struggle would be decided. Meanwhile, I had slowly to look about me for my peers, for those who, out of strength, would proffer me a helping hand in my work of destruction. From that time onward, all my writings are so much bait: maybe I understand as much about fishing as most people? If nothing was caught, it was not I who was at fault There were no fish to come and bite. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

In Nietzsche's yea-saying period he attempts to make the penultimate in yea-saying... In Nietzsche's nay-saying period he attempts to create the penultimate in nay-saying. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the Chord that intertwines both periods into a Dionysian Dithyramb.

We can see Nietzsche detail the typeology of the higher and lower types in Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil Genealogy of Morals, and more...

The ignoble nature is distinguished by the fact that it keeps its advantage steadily in view, and that this thought of the end and advantage is even stronger than its strongest impulse: not to be tempted to inexpedient activities by its impulses—that is its wisdom and inspiration. In comparison with the ignoble nature the higher nature is more irrational:—for the noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificing person succumbs in fact to his impulses, and in his best moments his reason lapses altogether. An animal, which at the risk of life protects its young, or in the pairing season follows the female where it meets with death, does not think of the risk and the death [>>this is why mankind is sickened on lazy peace and cowardly compromise too afraid of the risks it takes to discover something new, to be that bridge to the future, to be that bridge to strange new vista<<]; its reason pauses likewise, because its delight in its young, or in the female, and the fear of being deprived of this delight, dominate it exclusively; it becomes stupider than at other times, like the noble and magnanimous person. — Nietzsche, Gay Science

Continuing with these quotes we come to 260 in BGE where we can see Nietzsche detailing the two types of morality that rises from the two different types of man, but also that the higher and mixed civilizations arise from an attempt of reconciliation between the two types... there's that bridging through reconciliation again...

In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man, within one soul.... The noble type of man separates from himself the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud disposition displays itself he despises them. Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis "good" and "bad" means practically the same as "noble" and "despicable",—the antithesis "good" and "EVIL" is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self-abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:—it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. "We truthful ones"—the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to MEN; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to ACTIONS; it is a gross mistake, therefore, when historians of morals start with questions like, "Why have sympathetic actions been praised?" The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;" he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Below from Genealogy 10, we can see that Nietzsche details yet again that the Noble type of man maintains a BRIDGE to his love... while the weak cherish the onslaught of their enemies.

...the vindictive hatred and revengefulness of the weak in onslaughts on their enemies....
What respect for his enemies is found, forsooth, in an aristocratic man—and such a reverence is already a bridge to love! He insists on having his enemy to himself as his distinction. He tolerates no other enemy but a man in whose character there is nothing to despise and much to honour! On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!

11

The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals

The word "Superman," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes, as opposed to "modern" men, to "good" men, to Christians and other Nihilists — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

For Nietzsche the Highest type of man comes from acknowledging all of their human nature, not trying to kill off half of it, which is the aim of morality... to kill off half of our human nature.

This is why Zarathustra doesn't come down from the mountain and begin murdering his enemies... because he maintains that bridge to love for a possible reconciliation with his enemies. And it is in this that Nietzsche only ever details the Superman becoming a reality...

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Why? Because as Nietzsche details in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING. — Zarathustra

It’s quite obvious this Ishay Landa doesn't really have a deep grasp on Nietzsche's works.

So as we can see Nietzsche creates two distinct opposing periods because both of these periods are the totality of Nietzsche himself... as Nietzsche details in BGE 2 that two opposing forces are intertwined with each other through a chord that ties them together, making them all fundamentally one in the same as whatever creates the two values... these two values do not exist as an antithesis of values, one value grows out of the other value.

We can see this notion in the Gospels of The Bible, even with John 15:5 "I am the vine. You are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing."

And just like John 15:5 the dual orbit is nothing without the other to overcome in their opposite and insite each other to higher and higher births. The branches of Nietzsche's works are those two Yea-saying and Nay-saying periods, the Vine that weaves them all together is his Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Just as MAN is the ROPE between the ANIMAL and SUPERMAN.

The Gospels is one of the greatest influences on Nietzsche's philosophy. It is where he gathers his concept of the Overman and Amor Fati from. From the example of Jesus Christ and his psychology of The Glad Tidings that Nietzsche details in AC 33 and AC 39.

Thanks, that is how I see AI, but I think my brain is becoming dysfunctional and never using AI is not going to make things better. But like using a walker, it could extend my ability to do what I want to do. — Athena

Well, noone ever said you cannot discuss with AI and collect your thoughts and feelings. I think they mostly don't want you to ask a question and then just copy and paste direct from the AI. But, do be aware AI make mistakes too and could mislead you down a path of AI hallucinations.

In otherwords, you probably souldn't use it as an authority, but instead use it as a personal assistant.

The whole "Woke" debate is dumb, the majority of people for and against it use it as a vehicle to drive their politics one way or the other. It's like the section in Thus Spoke Zarathustra "Chastity," where Nietzsche details chastity is a virtue for most, but for some it's simply a practice they don't even think about it's just that they're so busy with other things away from sex, a certain innocence in one's own becoming rather than a projection on how one ought to live. In this way, the debate becomes a proxy battlefield of politics, but for those who experience it personally, it's not about ideology, it's a style of becoming...

Transitioning genders for example is a psychical need that manifests similarly to the conception of "Free will" such that it follows an equation roughly similar to "'I am 'free' and 'IT' must obey"... It's a manifestation of the need for control over oneself in a world that very much tells you to deny your instincts through objective morals that attempt to determine for you how one OUGHT to live. This burden of ought attempts to shackle someone to one side of a political stance (Left/Right being a newer manifestation of objective dogmas since the proverbial death of God). Both sides attempt to detail what is good/evil and offer their versions of reward/punishment through acceptance/rejection. It turns life into a courtroom.

And yet those individuals who experience "woke" as a lived personal experience don't give a damn about your Left/Right views on it. For them, it is a style of innocence in becoming that occurs out of a necessity in which there is no guilt, sin, or "wrongness." It is more of a fundamental condition of their existence. It is neither sinful nor virtuous, it's merely a manifestation of becoming. The projection of guilt by both sides (from conservatives: "unnatural," from progressives: "immoral not to affirm") both miss the point: they moralize what is, at root, the individual's personal experience of becoming, innocent, and innocence in their instincts.

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you.

Personally I feel OP was right just wasn't good at expressing what they meant we can see this in their reply to Lionino:

In other words, those that think they're not using straw person arguments but actually are would see this as a paradox. — Echogem222

Some person thinks:

"Every opponent I argue against argues only stupid, oversimplified positions."

To prove this the person always rewrites their opponents arguments in stupid, oversimplified ways.

Which amounts to: To prove my claim, I must falsify my claim. A Paradox.

My fault, that was a little vague. I meant when others DO reciprocate such a feeling. Not that anyone here is.

maybe it brings you a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate.

This forum knows how to beat dead horses that's for sure. How many posts does this forum have that discuss all this already? Pretty much every God post is this same back and forth. Haven't we learned already? There is no communication here, just people talking at closed gateways. Why waste time on what other people believe? It's pretty much the same people: with the same adamantine, unchanging, determinism... Yall just kicking rocks.

"God is Good!" <-> "No, God is Evil!"

:point: :ok:

It's not a matter of not being able to experience what someone/thing else experiences. The puzzle is why anything has any subjective experience at all. — Patterner

A point Quine gets into, the concept of shared stimulation is odd, because as Quine states, there is no homology of nerve endings shared between us, we could see the same thing and be stimulated in vastly different ways.