perhaps I may be confused by the way it's worded, but are you suggesting that experience is due to physicality with an event?

But I'm saying experience can be completely non physical. The quote I present is an older one that brings up this very notion, we can gain experience in dreams....

Unless you mean like we can only experience things because we have a body? But I would say then that the mind is caused by the body in that model.

Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience — MoK

Huh...

"Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit [What occurred in the light, goes on in the dark]: but the other way around, too."

I did say the lack of information left many possibilities. So if you want to delve into what you meant, feel free to do so.

Edit: Yeah, I didn't think you'd have the ability to back your criticism of Nietzsche with substance. Most cannot.

"Just like a car crash, just like a knife, my favorite weapon is the look in your eyes..."

I mean, at least we Bridge over our mutual dislike at "Ministry."

Russell was a pretty poor analyst of Nietzsche though. Very easy to overturn his poor understanding of Nietzsche's work.

Except that ressentiment has such a central place in N's criticism of Christianity - so it seems fitting to treat his philosophy as reverse ressentiment... — Banno

Except it wasn't.

MAN is the rope that binds the two opposites of animal and the Superman together... man doesn't achieve the "Ubermensch" type any more than man can revert back to being wholly animal... except maybe wolfman.

For Nietzsche, the highest presentment of man is that type who continually overcomes themselves in their opposites. The Judaeo-Christian morality system seeks to kill off the opposition. Rather than becoming greater thereby.

Not even sure what that's saying, I suppose you'll have to elaborate cause I can see it being an attempt at saying many things... not quite certain which option to pick... If you could guide me down your thoughts a little further, that would be appreciated. It's okay if you cannot though, at that point it just feels like you wanted to use a common, albeit poor, counter to Nietzsche's own philosophy and psychology, which has little to do with what I've said here.

"Ah hah! Nietzsche read books he was an ascetic!" is like "Nietzsche says theres a "God" behind his book Birth of Tragedy so I guess God's not dead, Gotcha Nietzsche!"

Kinda comical if anything.

Reading certainly can be an ascetic practice, but it's generally not for most.

Nietzsche is kinda silly, though, in part, I believe it's just part of his mischievousness...

In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche says that Truth and Deception are essentially (boiled down to the essence) the same thing, in this case they're both narratives. Generally speaking, truth is seen as Good, and Lies as bad, but there are times when the reverse of this valuation holds true...

And thus the best narratives tend to hold some deception to them... (When lying and truth are both aligned for what's good)

Verily, I beseech you: take your leave of me and arm yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still, be ashamed of him! Maybe he hath deceived you. — Nietzsche in Ecce Homo

You don't listen to Zarathustra because he's "right" you read it to experience the effects of the dithyramb, which affects the self-abnegated reader. And incites their will to power.

pretty logical to assume since I said we can observe it Im attacking AE1... dork.

...a child sliding down a plastic slide often has their hair stand on end... pretty sure it's detectable? You're basically playing "peek-a-boo" with magnetism and saying "empiricism doesn't exist" when you're not directly observing magnetism...

Allow me to then get into that a little further as to what I mean by literary music, we can delve into Ecce Homo and Birth of Tragedy:

The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music.... Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom, no probing of the soul, no art of speech: in his book, the most familiar and most vulgar thing utters unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with passion. Eloquence has become music. Forks of lightning are hurled towards futures of which no one has ever dreamed before. The most powerful use of parables that has yet existed is poor beside it, and mere child's-play compared with this return of language to the nature of imagery. — Nietzsche

By self abnegated I mean, getting immersed into the story, rather than critically thinking about something such as "time is a circle" and then being like "what that's not how reality works?!" and then you break immersion and miss the whole purpose of the story as a thought experiment. Cause the Apollonian consciousness often hides the Dionsysian world from their view. Self abnegation allows for one to see beyond their "Mayan Veil."

And for Nietzsche, music animates the body, via a sort of ontological instinct, and furthermore Nietzsche considers Thoughts as arising out of our Insincts ...

What Nietzsche means by throwing lightning is that Thus Spake Zarathustra is a book that ontologically activates "Will to Power."

Many humans are...

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity. Thank Heaven, it is not in honour of "pure foolery"![3] He who has an eye for colour will call him a diamond. The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Nietzsche, from Ecce Homo

The Dionysian Dithyrambs are music in literary form that incite a self abnegated reader into a certain psychological state ... Thus Spoke Zarathustra's ultimate effect is the overcoming of the loathing of mankind (which is also a person's own self-loathing).

To accept our Good and our Bad, rather than in the antithesis of values which rejects half of who we are...

To even overcome shame and guilt, as we can see in the dithyramb of the Vision and the Enigma from Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Well, because there's the matter of being more complete human beings...

To accept our loathing of mankind to overcome the loathing of mankind.

Most people prefer presenting their loathing of mankind as "evil" which must be objectly disregarded... exercised, slain, killed off...

But it still seems predicated on notions of improvement, on the idea that you are not good enough, that you ought to transcend yourself. Why?

I'm curious what a good example of such Nietzschean self-overcoming actually looks like. — Tom Storm

For Nietzsche man is the entity that grows out of his opposite, incited to higher and higher births, man is that which intertwines two opposites.

Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman — Zarathustra

It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. — Nietzsche BGE 2

Here's an example of basic positive overcoming of oneself in one's opposite from both perspectives... an obese and lazy person begins activity and several positive life affirming benefits begin to occur.... say they get into great shape, and suddenly hit a wall... and theyve run out of excess stored fat, but want to get stronger than they currently are... so what do they do? Go back to overeating as their old fat boy tendencies used to illicit and begin eating a surplus of nutrition for growth of muscle, rather than fat and train the body to utilize the excess for positive growth. Then when you want to shred back down you cut overeating...

Thus it's a cycle of over eating and under eating, a cycle of converting a downgoing into a cycle of overgoing... basically you end up finding room in both "Good and Bad" (opposites) such that each have room to fuel the other once the cycle of one gives way to the cycle of the other, ad infinitum.

You ask:

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Is it not a more fundamental question of should, regardless of could? What must one begin doing now, currently, in the gateway of this moment such that all the "could have beens" were worth suffering through?

Even without a proper argument we can see in history God changes... based on the perception of "who," which also becomes a matter of "when."

Notice how even the swine go to heaven...
Notice how the only equation that's ever the same is in the observational account of the Gospels from multiple sources where as the other disciples put their own spin into what Christianity is? Gospels>therest

Anyway, juxtaposing radical, kind, loving Jesus versus cruel legalistic Judaism is a really nasty (and false) portrayal. Not commenting on Nietzsche personally here; just the idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, John 1:

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

IE the law of God brought Moses is the false way for humans...

Nah, Nietzsche admired the Jews. But he also taught them that their slave morality perpetuates its own crisis. Hence Zionism taking quite a shine to Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology, unfortunately Zionism happened to fall into nationalism in the late 1940s, which isn't exactly compatible with Nietzsche's ideas.

But when you're only reading some passages in the gospels and completely disregarding others, which I suspect Nietzsche is doing, — BitconnectCarlos

Correct, lead by example and all. The Christianity of the disciples is for the most part, the Judaism that Jesus rejected in the Gospels... so to not align in the same path as Jesus will be left under the God's angry judgement (John 3:17 roughly iirc)

Well, I see you educated me instead. :blush:

I thought you were trying to grill me on Nietzsche not believing in opposites... probably because Im used to reddit.

But I wanted to add aphorism 2 hints at why Zarathustra says that "man is a rope to the superman."

Man binds the concept of animal and superman together.

And you can definitely see Nietzsche believes in a spectrum, as he says all things exists in gradations...

We can see again, not as an antithesis, but as a refinement: something grown out of...

Not as its opposite, but—as its refinement! It is to be hoped, indeed, that LANGUAGE, here as elsewhere, will not get over its awkwardness, and that it will continue to talk of opposites where there are only degrees and many refinements of gradation

This is why Zarathustra says Man is rough stone in need of a sculptor's chisel:

Zarathustra became master even of his loathing of man: man is to him a thing unshaped, raw material, an ugly stone that needs the sculptor's chisel.

From ugly raw unshaped material we are hewn, and refined.

And the only time Nietzsche directly says the superman becomes reality is when Zarathustra suffers with his adversaries... with them from their very selves... this bit is in Ecce Homo.

"und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet!"

I find it very interesting that he specifies ihnen an ihnen vs just ihnen leidet...

Suppose it might mean suffer the fools and look the other direction? Basically amor fati and the glad tidings of Jesus Christ...

Who grew out of his opposite in Judaism... atleast according to the gospels which Nietzsche's got mad respect for Jesus from, as he details in AC 39 and 33...

And Foucault discusses this very notion that it took 200 years after Port Royal for Nietzsche and Dostoevsky to redeem the image of Jesus as the all graceful on page 78 of Madness and Civilization.

Interesting how Nietzsche, Jung, and Camus all worked on giving certain parts of Judaeo-Christian psychology back to the people in a more secular format. Though there's somethin in Camus' approach, he uses psychology of the Christianity from the disciples, rather than the psychology of the "one true Christian" the psychology of the glad tidings that died on the cross...

In fact... man is the bridge between the laws of God which Moses carried down from the mountain and Jesus, the overcoming of that destructive wrath ...that grew out of Gods angry judgement...

I see you're lookong for an education... accepted I was trying to save it for the June 6th thing... but alas those who don't read need to be read to apparently.

Oh, on, second thought, I realize what error your having... because you understand that Nietzsche doesn't believe things exist solely in black and white dualism, that you think opposite ends of the spectrum don't exists. Hehe cute, though it's pretty poor logic to assume spectrums don't have opposite ends. And you have to also understand Nietzsche's use of the term "opposite" when he uses it means "the other end of the spectrum." Not a black and white 180...

So the second aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil literally starts off with a quote presented
by Nietzsche that mocks metaphysicsians (he literally gives it in quotes):

"How could something arise out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? Or the will to truth out of the will to deception? Or selfless action out of self-seeking? Or the pure sunny look of the wise man out of greed? Origins like these are impossible. Anyone who dreams about them is a fool, in fact, something worse. Things of the highest value must have another origin peculiar to them. They cannot be derived from this ephemeral, seductive, deceptive, trivial world, from this confusion of madness and desire! Their basis must lie, by contrast, in the womb of being, in the immortal, in hidden gods, in 'the thing in itself'- their basis must lie there , and nowhere else!"

The next sentence informs upon the quote given by a typical metaphysician:

This way of shaping an opinion creates the typical prejudice which enables us to recognize once more the metaphysicians of all ages. This way of establishing value stands behind all their logical procedures.

Nietzsche writes that doubting whether something grows out of its opposite is a typical prejudice of metaphysicians... next Nietzsche talks about how they believe values exists in antithesis to each other rather than GROW out of their OPPOSITE...

From this "belief" of theirs they wrestle with their "knowledge," with something which is finally, in all solemnity, christened "the truth." The fundamental belief of the metaphysicians is the belief in the opposition of values.

For example Good and Evil are antithesis with no bridging, where as Good and Bad, bad is the pale foil reflection of the good...from the opposite end of the spectrum (GoM10) like the Philosopher and his Shadow...

...skipping the middle unless you want me to go over it...

Now we can see Nietzsche putting at the fundamental base in which the true, genuine, unselfish grew out of is appearance, deception, self-interests, desire:

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!- But who is willing to bother with such a dangerous Perhaps? For that we must really await the arrival of a new style of philosopher, the kind who has some different taste and inclination, the reverse of philosophers so far, in every sense, philosophers of the dangerous Perhaps. And speaking in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers arriving on the scene.

We can see Nietzsche suggesting there's a bridge of some kind connecting those "Good" values with the "Bad." Nothing bridges the antithesis of values...

If you want more aphorisms of Nietzsche detailing that which grows out of its opposite, lemme know, I'll drop em for you.

This whole OP brings nothing substantive is the point.

I understand what you are saying, and I see that the idea of knowledge being imparted to an absolutely simple being epistemically counts against the theory for you; but that’s too many premises for me to talk in one response! Pick one, and we will dive in. — Bob Ross

Then dont put up such an asanine argument with so many obnoxiously annoying parts that you know is Bull...

Fact is faith isn't knowing a damn thing about God's existence as real or false ... that's how it works -- let it go and focus your energy elsewhere. The only logic you need is "God is real." Anything less shows you doubt...
The preoccupation with arguments for God only speaks to a lack of faith. Faith drives religion, not logic. And the benefits of faith are the biggest gains from religion, no? If you want to believe in God, do it, anyone who wants to stop you is just jealous you can achieve such a level of faith honestly.

He does indeed believe in opposites. ‍

Well, Nietzsche was a fan of Voltaire, Voltaire had "postmodern" thoughts too by pretty much the same assetments of Nietzsche. Id bet the majority of arguments for Nietzsche's "postmodernism" can be found prior. If we're going to nit pick...

Nietzsche's not beyond structuralism or grand narrative, in fact people organize into hierarchies regardless as Nietzsche determines might makes right. Though of course that might is tempered in its opposite for the greatest outcome.

BGE 200 says (also he gives examples of men of the age of dissolution) "The man of the age of dissolution... always arrives exactly, at those times, when the masses longing for repose, step forward, they are complementary to each other rising from the same cause..." The Higher-man is the grand narrative...

Sure, he was against systematized dogma and dialectical thought etc etc...but not post structuralism.

Post modernism in it's entirety (not even the most extreme example of) would, imo, likely be grimaced at by Nietzsche, even if there are some bits of it that can be found in his works... even if they are major players.

But Nietzsche certainly was the first to challenge objective truth, history provides examples "time and time again" number of examples... it certainly wasn't Nietzsche he disccuses from the historical sense that there are no moral facts for example.

Even the structure of history is that "might makes right."

And just because Nietzsche and the Nazis and even Zionism share similar ideas doesn't mean he's the father of either of those movements regardless of what they may have appropriated from him. Same goes for post modernism.

He influenced the fathers of postmodern thought. To be more precise.

Nietzsche certainly is still quite relevant whether we want to believe it or not. His influence has already had several far reaching consequences that are, and will continue to shape consciousness for some time. However, many people still run foul of not fully realizing and actualizing his works.

The real secret about Thus Spoke Zarathustra is, as Nietzsche details it within Ecce Homo, a dithyramb, under the rubric of music. You see, Nietzsche recreated the Dionsysian Dithyrambs, which is music in literally form that incites a self abnegated (cup not full) reader into a state of heightened creativity and intelligence, by breaking you out of the Apollonian mold...

It readies you for that Dionysian Wisdom that the Apollonian mind finds abhorrent...

That wisdom which is always seemingly a crime to obtain: Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve...

Because the greatest presentment of man is always presented as if gained through a crime... through the crime of wisdom.

And so long as man attempts to shun the Dionsysian Wisdom, man will continue to grow weaker and weaker still through the denial of life.

Crime is a domain that comes after human nature, and thus it could be argued that specific criminals are more complete humans... for accepting a part of themselves that others would shun or attempt to repress.

This is one of the big differences between "Good and Bad" and "Good and Evil" mortalities that N mentions in Genealogy of Morals...

And others view him as the father of postmodernism — Joshs

Yeah, but that's like saying Nietzsche's responsible for Nazi Germany too. Just a poor interpretation of Nietzsche, regardless of N sprouting the idea in someone's mind... thats due to their incipient reification with his ideas making it their own.

Right, the image there is how I see it, and as I've had it explained since God is unknowable Jesus wouldn't have comprehended that he is God, even if he was observed as the son of God by mortals... God never left Jesus cause Jesus is God.

Jesus represented a mortal avatar of gods grace more or less.

Oh, I'll be around to reiterate your fallacies, no doubt you'll be bumping this snake oil in other threads when it falls flat, as you constantly do. And everyone tells you how fallacious it it and you're like.... "nah, I'm just dishonest!"

A bunch of yip yap I see.

People commit suicide all the time Egg. — Philosophim

So necessarily existence shouldn't be...

Ty. I knew you'd say it my way eventually.

Try not moving goalposts.

And the audacity to try to use it logically against me in the beginning of your argument and then say I can't use it logically against you... to show that existence isn't necessarily only a "should be"... cognitive dissonance and fallacies with you mate.

Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim

Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. It simply is, so you're asking meaningless questions that beg questions due to missing leaps in logic that even connect sentence 2 and 3 with "should," let alone how they connect with 1. Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, or for it to even be meaningful. Morality is a subset of the domain of existence not the other way around.

In your argument morality defines existence because it is so easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions that you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve, which we can see because good should be. Saying you don't use the Is-Ought fallacy is like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it's literally in your definitions for all to see, as plain as day as Hitler was a Nazi.

I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition for adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. Sorry mate, I'm not that dumb...

I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP.

1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be (line 2 of OP)
5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4) (and the Is-Ought fallacy)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5)
7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round (morality doesn't evaluate existence)
But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence...

Complete utter nonsense.

Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:

"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"

then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence.

You should read Quine, and learn a thing about analytics.

Your argument he been a perpetuated farce of fallacy. And you're purposefully dishonest when you swap the adjectival definition of good for the noun of moral good.

Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over.

I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists.

But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.

That existence should be.

How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists?

Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be...

I cant bridge this...

"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence.

In fact every term in your argument shifts around...

Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be

Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence...
Straight fallacy. That's how you move the goalpost... your definitions are all interchangeable with each other and are ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.

Also good goes from description to prescription in your model. As 180 Proof stated right off the bat... he axed one of the issues but you arrogantly blew him off cause you thought you justified your position via your circular logic.

Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion.

Because it's not hard to continually point to the same fallacies.

"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought.

And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good.

More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies.

You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be"

This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts.

You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though ...

If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. — Philosophim

Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought.

Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce.

Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun.

The following is yip yap red herring talking in circles

But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it. — Philosophim

You say "Good Should Be"

This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, "why good should be?" which always points back to the is-ought fallacy of your initial argument as to why "good should be".

Of course you don't point to it in the OP, the OP is predicated in the fallacy of the argument that leads to "good should be."

"Good should be" EQUATES in language to = Existence is, thus Good should be, and bad shouldn't.

Doesn't matter how you word it... the holophrasticity of language shows it's what you're declaring.

You're saying "cause I only use Ought, I can pretend there is no is"... but to derive at "good should be" you did so by having some argument before begging this question... as to why good should be...

I'm not sure if you know what fallacy fallacy is. Just because I call your continued use of fallacy poor form, doesn't make it any less true.

Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit.

Continued red herring after red herring in an attempt to maintain your fallacious argument.

"Existence is, thus it ought to be good."

We no reason to even move beyond this fallacy to which you use to perpetuate other fallacies and circular reasoning.

You there's a reason you've not put together valid and sound premises that necessarily conclude your point.

Because all you have in an opinion.

You cannot get beyond the fact that "bad should be" because without it, Good is meaningless, and thus saying "Good should be" is meaningless.

You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion.

Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. You post about it in anything else you're in just about trying to funnel traffic here to continually discuss and perpetuate this post.

"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good.

It's perfectly fine to maintain this as an opinion and world view, but you don't have an actual argument. Just opinion.

Hehe, well, to be fair, Nietzsche says reading is a vicious activity for someone in their prime... and I was trying to give the impression of heavy handedness with quotes of Nietzsche detailing the overcoming of something in it's opposite such as:

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist...

...Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth.

I have many other such cases from BoT to Ecce Homo.

And that I have multiple quotes from across every one of his books detailing this very notion, I'd say, that while Monkey has a solid grasp of some of Nietzsche's fundamentals. They're still lacking quite a bit simce they've never even recognized this notion in Nietzsche's writings... and it actually plays into Nietzsche's fundamental objection of Christianity.

Nietzsche would perhaps take a moment to slap the shit out of me for expending so much of my vitality in delving deep into his madness. I do have a certain mastery with his works that I want to make useful towards others here.

It's taken roughly a decade of my life to become overfull with Nietzsche. He was my first true love affair in philosophy because I too am a Dionysian nature. I fell in with Nietzsche because I too am something of an overcoming of myself in my opposite.

Who said anything about Hegel? We're talking of the double orbit of Heraclitus, geesh, the incitation of opposites to higher and higher births. And it's quite apparent from your statement you're not that well read on Nietzsche. Though you do have some pretty decent fundamental knowledge about his works. I can clobber you with his aphorisms if you really require?

I gave you a taste of yourself? I don't see you that way, but I don't really care that you do or don't agree. But now you know how you appear. Appearances aren't always the truth of the matter.