Actually evidence is gathering that the laws of physics do change, and not just way back in the Big Bang. The Platonists are a bit on the defensive.
Life a single clump of power? No way. Most probably it’s a potential power driven by vibrations on the most basic evel. The whole world resonates or disonates sort of like a giant magnetic field, transformed by alternate poles. The amount of energy generated this way could be monumental.
However it’s probably not clumped. It’s dispersed throughtout with various concentrations of energy.
The will presribes the ultimate centrifuge, where all energy is centered and increased mega exponentionally. It approaches singularity, but is prevented. Latest studies confirm this. It’s pushed back in the form of primal substance. And everything is put back together a zillion times, and eactly the same way, because if not, it could not have been constructed THAT way in the first place. Construction is of very many points of view of a lot of dimensions. It cannot be a lineral construct, the variables need to be built in functionally, harmonically.
You have said what you’ve said in your replies, but I still believe will to power: universalized, is over simplification.
How so?
I don’t mean to say that all aspects of the universe are really one singular clump. The universe is multiplicity, but there is a universal striving for appropriating energy, all existence strives for that.
I agree with that part, Dan.
How is it an over-simplification? Elaborate, please.
Wtp as the basis for existence is fine, I won’t argue, but there’s no reason to push the issue or obsess with it. I consider the power in wtp more relevant than the will being that I already have all the will I could ever want, and far, far more. I’ll say this with sincerity, knowing where you come from and where you’re likely going; worrying about the wtp of animals will not help you achieve more power. While you’re wasting time worrying about competing for “power” with animals, others are leaving you behind as they pursue relevant power; many of them have already moved beyond thinking in terms of power relations between most people, let alone animals.
Shit happens and then you die, wtp, not remotely going to explain why as already said, and thus already dismissed, telos? I don’t think there is any philosophy that really explains what it means to exist or a reason you do. You do though, you will though.
The telos of existence is whatever YOUR telos is. Existence always means YOUR existence, or someone else in which case you speak about THEIR telos.
“Existence” itself has no purpose, how could it? Purpose is a function of entities constructed with aims, needs, consciousness, experience. Existence as such has no aims, no needs, no consciousness and no experience.
And every such being will have a somewhat different purpose and need than others, because once entities become complex enough where we may even speak of their having telos they also attain the ability and depth of experience, novel processing and memory to in effect constitute a universe unto themselves. Chaos theory is sufficient to demonstrate the impossibility of a universal telos.
Will to power is part of the structure of such beings, because all beings emerge from natural selection. But it is false to equate this with the telos of a being, because purpose lives above the level of derivatives of power, it is very much “self-contained”, self-justifying and Gestalt-like.
To correct the thesis, it would instead be correct to say: telos exists because beings for whom telos may be said to be possible exist; will to power is the behest of the history of a being’s necessity in terms of form, but not in terms of content.
MM, well said. Though you’d have no idea how many times PR, where he comes from, has read posts that are virtually the equivalent as the above. I recall Tyrannus’ criticism that you over complicate matters. I don’t think you necessarily do, but there is a time for simplicity as well as complexity. I don’t think it’s a strength of yours to know when to use what type of language.
So in the existence that does not have aims, needs, consciousness, etc., we have simple and complicated processes moving from one utterly determined state to Another. Of course this would also be true for entities where those nouns - needs, consciousness, experience, aims - have the kind of qualia so it seems like there are several paths to take, when in fact there is only one. The will to Power is not non-existent, it’s just like anyother inevitable physical domino effect, like water moving downhill. From the inside it seems like choices are made and might have beens had some quasi existence, when in fact it was just complicated water moving down hill. Unless one Believes in a non-compatibalist free will, but then one has one’s work cut out explaining what that is. But like water running downhill, some batches gather up leaves. Water has as much telos as any other matter, though it is less likely to brag about it.
I don’t write for people who need to have what they read match the narrow constraints of their effortless understanding.
Also I don’t know what “PR” means.
Free will and determinism mean the same thing.
And you missed what I said about purpose living above the derivations of “power”. Water has very little about it that may possibly constitute such a dimension, but not so for consciousness.
I meant ES.
Interesting. I had a thread similar to this (here) in which I questioned whether Niezsche’s WTP made him a panpsychic (or pantheist?). Questioning whether Nieztsche was a teleologist is an interesting twist on that very question, and I think it hits closer to home (Nietzsche’s home, that is).
I think you’re right. This Nietzschian teleology is (could we say?) midway between the extreme theist view of a detached, personal, objectively real God overseeing the world and a godless, purposeless, mechanical universe that somehow sustains its own existence. I think the fact that we have this duality, this schism between religion and science, is what blinds us to this midway view (or at least what prevents it from showing up on our radar period–I mean, if it isn’t obvious, it should at least have occurred to one or two of us at some point in our lives).
In a matter of speaking, it is–at least according to my crazy views. I believe in a concept I call “equivalence”. To use a metaphore, equivalence is like an equation: 1 = .5 + .5 (or .2 + .8, or .1 + .75 + .15, or 4 - 3, or whatever). 1 is the clump. How that clump is divided up–whether it’s .5 + .5, or .2 + .8, or .1 + .75 + .15, or 4 - 3, or whatever–is a matter of the configuration (or the quality, or the “type”) of consciousness perceiving it. But to be fair, I wouldn’t exactly call this clump the “will to power”–that title can only go to pieces of the whole, to particulars–rather I would call it the “will to existence” (the ultimate will in my opinion).
I think it’s a who. And I too would like to know who that is.
Oh… uh… I still don’t get it.
G, ES is PR, I thought MM knew that.
S
X + – [up][down]
… 
Just kidding… Anyways, yeah, I got that ES = PR, but who is PR?
PR is an N at KTS who came here as ES.
Something that explains everything explains nothing.