No, he isn’t a cock sucker either.
And nobody understands the nature of the will to power, outside of noting it’s contradictory paradoxes. It is obviously just Nietzsche’s incomplete attempt at designing a new set if categories like Aristotle and the Stoics did, but he couldn’t design a system able to overcome the Stoic’s criticism of Aristotle’s system. For a philosopher who distrusted system builders, Nietzsche tried damn hard himself to build one, and failed. Note he never published that shit. Everyone gets so fucking excited over concepts he himself felt didn’t past muster.
There is no “value” in self determination, this is like saying your measuring the speed of time. Your producing two different scales of time. If “valuation” exists, it is all determined “without” self, and self only comes into play as a after though.
Fixed Cross doesn’t type his posts, his posts belong to Fixed Cross. That’s the paradox of self, our motivations don’t start in our personality constructs, but in the supporting, reflexive mechanics of the mind, and it us autonomous outside the scope of consciousness for the most part. “I” just sat up, while typing this after waking up, but didn’t choose to sit up. I was aware it was coming consciously, but I didn’t “Will” sitting up, and the placement of my feet wasn’t my choice, or how I hold the phone exactly, or the tilt if my back or neck, or how my body is adjusting to a heater.
I can write a mathematical script explaining the needs and motivations for my every action over the last minute, but that would be very long and take a long, long time, and “I” am certain “I” will miss a few things “I” did without knowing.
Does a stop sign stop a “valuation” or a activity? Is involuntary manslaughter “Will to Power”? Is the phenomena of clusterfuck, goatfuck mess of a social activity in any way shape or form resolveable in the scope of only Positive Law, and not Negative? Will the tyranny of lines be abolished in your ideal valuation, and everyone just bumrush the popcorn stand without paying? Will anything get done?
Nietzschean concepts here on this forum tend to be irrational programs for the “self” ironically to act restrained, violating the theory precisely on the eve of interpersonal interaction, saying you can’t restrain. You want to stab me, that is your self determination, and I, Fixed Cross as a Nietzschean, will gladly die defending your right to unchecked libertine impulses to stabadoozie everyone with a kitchen knife. Right?
The “Self” is not the sum of all impulses, does not control every action or reaction, but also has overlap and exact union with man of those actions, and prescribed ownership over stuff not belong to it rationally. Your heartbeat us not yours, but you claim ownership over it, despite not being even consciously in control over your brain stem or it’s functions at all. You claim your heart beat like you claim your property, and your property is a bundle of positive and negative positive law concepts bundled up, in neither a “De Facto” nor “De Jure” sense, as neither legal concept fully maps the scope of the kinds of interactions between ownership and perspective awareness. An example, a painting… how do you determine in a Any Rand sense the value of a painting? Every person seeing it doesn’t necessarily see the same thing. Can a owner, therefore, really own it by subjectively saying “I own this” if his “I-ness” isn’t even aware of his own actions? He can in our American jurisdiction make a case for copyright if it us a copyrighted painting, but this needs proven, and a satire of the painting can be made even while in copyright, or frame by frame criticisms of the technique. Was his valuation of his property trespassed against? If I own land, and you stand on the edge of it, painting it, can I tell you to stop? I own that land, I own the objectification of the subjective inspiration too? Nope, but nir can you point video cameras at that property and film everything, or stick webcams into bedrooms filming people fucking in secret. Yet in another country, yes you can. None of it is based just on positive or negative law, but relating schemas in how we interpreted the self in the here and now, and it always has loose ends. You cannot value “freedom” without immediately giving creedance to constraint. Period. You try that, you end up for starters, with severe mapping issues, the self starts having out of body experiences, like it did in Aristotle’s system, being multiple places at once. There is no “power” binding it all together. Emperor Norton of San Francisco ruled just as far as Emperor Augustus did, at best, his own body. Augustus sat on the apex of a better network of influence though. He had to play by the delicate syntax of the statecraft of that era to administer competently though. He couldn’t proclaim “I value large cubes, make large cubes” and expect uniformity in conformity as messengers rode out to the provinces with this command. The specifics would be all over the place. Would all governors comply? Probably fucking not. They would look at the order as a joke, or as if it came from a madman. If Augustus went on a survey of his territories, he would find many lacking cubes, some with cubes knee high. Some with cubes as big as a house. Some governors might of gotten ambitious and started sculpting a mountain to be cube like. In Palmyra, he might find them worshiping the stupid cubes, thereby making more than merely a cube. Would the materials be the same? Stone, wood, bronze? How do you measure the magnitude? One cube, many cubes? Should fucking cubes be all over the damn place, with people stunning their damn toes in them, getting small ones stuck in their shoes? Can doorways and windows be added to them for use as housing, or just they be solid? Can you stock them, or dies that create a irregular rectangle? Do all cubes belong to Augustus, or do they belong by treaty to others? Do the cubes exist if Augustus is unaware of them? Are cubes made unaware of this decree of Augustus in compliance? If a honest effort is made to make a cube, but your not good with geometry, is it still a cube? Can a cube be made without reference to a compass and straight edge? Can someone mskingba cube say there are alot of little cubes inside the big cube you just can’t see? Can you just drawl a cube and say it us a cube? Can a governor invade Persia, take their cubes, and return in triumph, saying he doesn’t need to comply with “making cubes”, as warring to gain trophy cubes is as good as making them?
I suggest a rereading of Marsilius of Padua.