Fixed Cross wrote:Would you agree then that the affirmation of the ER is a means to an end?
That is what I think - a means to get solid ground under ones feet. It is for this reason that I can't see the Superman sufficiently defined as he who affirms the ER. I rather think it is a means to prepare man for bringing about the conditions that permit the existence of the Superman.
So what I am implying is that the Superman would be "innocent" with respect to the "sins" (erring, degenerating) of the species we are used to calling mankind. In a sense I think that the creator of the conditions for the Superman has to endure more than the Superman himself. I certainly did not take this directly from Nietzsche, I'll admit that right away.
Well, on second thought, it is compatible with the final metamorphosis of man - from lion to child. The transition from a ferociously attacking spirit (destroyer of slave morality) to a creature that isn't even aware anymore of the possibility of slave morality.
In Lampert's reading, that is not the final metamorphosis of man, but only of the man who aspires to be a disciple of Zarathustra. On the other hand, in Seung's reading the lion symbolises what he calls "the Faustian superman" and the child "the Spinozan superman", and these correspond to the hero and the super-hero from TSZ "The Sublime Ones", respectively.
I do not think, however, that the creator of the conditions for the Superman is only a Faustian superman and the Superman is only a Spinozan superman. I think both are _both_, and both are thereby Supermen. To be sure, in Lampert's reading only the creator of said conditions—i.e., Nietzsche/Zarathustra—is the Superman; but I distinguish between the Superman in a narrow and in a broad sense.
In any case, I think there are two things you really have to dwell on. The first has to do with the last quote in my "Anarchism of the Right" OP (
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2443551#p2443551). You expressed chagrin when I explained to you in private that the reason there would be no wars to end all wars was that at the very least the wars of the past would eternally recur. This however is crucial, and also goes for the Superman: the Superman whose conditions Nietzsche creates is in the first place Nietzsche himself—the Nietzsche of the "next" cycle. And in the broad sense, it is in the first place all the Supermen of the _past_ (see
http://www.humanarchy.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=336#p336).
The second thing I think you really have to dwell on is the meaning of the eternal recurrence. I think that, even though you may not take affirming it lightly, you may still be taking it _too_ lightly. It means there is no growth out of nothing, as you have postulated, no free will,—nothing besides a single fixed universal process. What happens now is as unalterable as the past. It's a world without "goodness", "humaneness", "warmth", etc.—these are all illusions. Realising this means realising you are Skynet. Today is Judgment Day.