A most persuasive thesis, Sauwelios 
; forgive my passive aggressive quip but would you care to back that up with some useful reasoning as to how you came to such a conclusion so as we too might perhaps be persuaded as to your viewpoint.
Well, for one thing, Nietzsche, as far as I know, never uses the phrase “master slave morality”. Where did you get that phrase anyway - Wikipedia? But Wikipedia writes “master-slave morality”, which we could rewrite as “master/slave morality”. And indeed, you Initially do write it this way. I suppose that what is meant by this phrase is “the interplay between master morality and slave morality” - a dynamic. But then you say:
“Ive also been reading that he views nihilism as a situation which has come about through the master slave morality.”
If you mean “through the master/slave dynamic” or “through the interplay between master and slave morality”, I think you’re wrong: it has come about through slave and herd morality - which are not one and the same! George Morgan says of these two moralities:
“The flock [die Heerde], needing leaders, was seduced by decadents, its morality perverted in the direction of decadence ideals. But in the course of time herd instincts proved more powerful: the decay of ascetic Christianity and the rise of democratic humanitarianism was a return of Flock Morality to its natural form. Nietzsche believed that Flock Morality is the most important element in present morals, and that this fact threatens ultimate stagnation for humanity.”
[Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, page 161.]
The ascetic priest, too, was too extreme for the herd (and of course he was himself a kind of nobleman: a “spiritual nobleman”, a person closer to God than most people, than “laymen”).
Anyway, this is how Nietzsche ultimately describes nihilism:
"Supposing that what is at any rate believed to be the “truth” really is true, and the meaning of all culture is the reduction of the beast of prey “man” to a tame and civilized animal, a domestic animal, then one would undoubtedly have to regard all those instincts of reaction and ressentiment through whose aid the noble races and their ideals were finally confounded and overthrown [that is, slave instincts, not herd instincts] as the actual instruments of culture; which is not to say that the bearers of these instincts themselves represent culture. Rather is the reverse not merely probable—no! today it is palpable! These bearers of the oppressive instincts that thirst for reprisal, the descendants of every kind of European and non-European slavery, and especially of the entire pre-Aryan populace—they represent the regression of mankind! These “instruments of culture” are a disgrace to man and rather an accusation and counterargument against “culture” in general! One may be quite justified in continuing to fear the blond beast at the core of all noble races and in being on one’s guard against it: but who would not a hundred times sooner fear where one can also admire than not fear but be permanently condemned to the repellent sight of the ill-constituted, dwarfed, atrophied, and poisoned? And is that not our fate? What today constitutes our antipathy to “man”?—for we suffer from man, beyond doubt.
Not fear; rather that we no longer have anything left to fear in man; that the maggot “man” is swarming in the foreground; that the “tame man,” the hopelessly mediocre and insipid man, has already learned to feel himself as the goal and zenith, as the meaning of history, as "higher man"—that he has indeed a certain right to feel thus, insofar as he feels himself elevated above the surfeit of ill-constituted, sickly, weary and exhausted people of which Europe is beginning to stink today, as something at least relatively well-constituted, at least still capable of living, at least affirming life.
[…]
“Here precisely is what has become a fatality for Europe—together with the fear of man we have also lost our love of him, our reverence for him, our hopes for him, even the will to him. The sight of man now makes us weary—what is nihilism today if it is not that?— We are weary of man.”
[Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, 1, 11-12.]
The part I have made bold describes the herd type. As you can tell, Nietzsche ranks this type higher than the slave type. Indeed, Nietzsche believed in the desirability of “a strong and healthily consolidated mediocrity” [The Antichrist(ian), section 57]. Such a mediocrity is the foundation of the culture pyramid (“culture” not in the sense used above, though…):
“A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated mediocrity.”
This mediocrity would consists of “slaves”, it is true; but not resentful slaves, but rather like the serfs of medieval times:
“The third [and bottom] layer of the social structure is that of the rural peasantry, this is the function of fecundity and prosperity, this class can be associated with the class of slaves - although this class is very different to the slave class of the early modern era and is probably best thought of as an underclass.”
[Philip Quadrio, Odhinn and Tyr.]
The dropouts of the social structure (from all three layers), those who rank below the bottom, are what Nietzsche calls the chandalas: the pariahs, outcasts, the truly hated (for the mediocre are just despised: despised and loved). It is from these dropouts that slave morality, the slave instinct of resentment, arises:
“Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker’s sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge… The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights… What is bad? But I have said this already: all that is born of weakness, of envy, of revenge.— The anarchist and the Christian have the same origin…”
[Nietzsche, ibid.]
This origin is shared by Marx and Paul.
As for your question “how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power”, this is a pretty difficult question. Nietzsche’s Apollo was subsumed by his Dionysus in his later understanding, so that the imposition of Form (Being) on the flux of Becoming was understood as a very Dionysian - forceful - act. Thus his later Dionysus (an Apollinian Dionysus) was antithesised with Christ (Dionysus versus the “Crucified”) - who was understood as a decadent form of Dionysus.
Said imposition of Form on the flux may even be said to be (of) the essence of the will to power:
Dionysus is the god of superabundance (or ascending life), Apollo the god of moderation (or descending life). Descending life only creates to the extent that it satisfies its will to conserve.
EDIT: this theory is retarded 
Sorry, but this is real bullshit. Moderation (as opposed to mediocrity!) is an expression of strength - yes, of superabundance: of overflowing strength which is applied precisely to dam this overflowing of strength.
Nay, it is not so simple as “Dionysus is good, Apollo is bad”; the grand style is Apollinian! It is the imposition of Order on the chaos of existence, not “pure chaos” or another pure folly.
This, my dear Impious, is why you must read The Will to Power.
In section 940, the camel, lion and child are described:
“The teaching meden agan [“nothing in excess”] applies to men of overflowing strength–not to the mediocre. The enkrateia [“temperance”] and askesis [“ascetic exercise”] is only a stage toward the heights: the “golden nature” is higher.
“Thou shalt”–unconditional obedience in Stoics, in the Christian and Arab orders, in the philosophy of Kant (it is immaterial whether to a superior or to a concept).
Higher than “thou shalt” is “I will” (the heroes); higher than “I will” stands: “I am” (the gods of the Greeks).
The barbarian gods express nothing of the pleasure of restraint–are neither simple nor frivolous nor moderate.”
[section 940, entire, with added emphasis.]
This is why I said Nietzsche’s later Dionysus - the one antithesised with the “Crucified One”, not with Apollo - was an Apollinian Dionysus. For all the Olympian gods were Apollinian gods, as Nietzsche stated in The Birth of Tragedy. It is also in that book that he distinguishes between the Greek (Apollinian) Dionysus and the barbarian Dionysus.
The lion (or tiger) must temper himself: only then can he reach the “I am” of the Olympians:
“[P]recisely to the hero is beauty the hardest thing of all. Unattainable is beauty by all ardent wills [and all strength is strength of will: so overflowing strength means overflowing will, all-too-ardent will].
[…]
The virtue of the pillar shalt thou strive after: more beautiful doth it ever become, and more graceful - but internally harder and more sustaining - the higher it riseth [and how Apollinian is that!].”
[Zarathustra, Of the Sublime Ones.]
The grand style is of course concerned with beauty:
“”[B]ecoming more beautiful" is a consequence of enhanced strength. Becoming more beautiful as the expression of a victorious will [the victory of the striving and struggling hero], of increased co-ordination, of a harmonizing of all the strong desires, of an infallibly perpendicular stress. Logical and geometrical simplification is a consequence of enhancement of strength: conversely the apprehension of such a simplification again enhances the feeling of strength-- High point of the development: the grand style.
Ugliness signifies the decadence of a type, contradiction and lack of co-ordination among the inner desires–signifies a decline in organizing strength, in “will,” to speak psychologically."
[WtP 800, with added emphasis.]
Thus the barbarian, though evidently superior to the mediocre, is still relatively “weak”. The feeling of superiority of the Greek over the barbarian was not originally a feeling of moral superiority; it was a feeling of aesthetic superiority (the word barbaros is an onomatopoea reflecting the “bar bar” sounds the outlanders seemed to make to the Greeks).
You’re right. What I said was retarded. Especially considering that the exercise of moderation is what separates the ubermensch from the blond beast. I wasn’t thinking at my best when I wrote it. But I still stand by my signature.
We may indeed compare the relation blond beast - Ãœbermensch to the relation Dionysus - Apollo:
“[T]he same men who are held so sternly in check inter pares by custom, respect, usage, gratitude, and even more by mutual suspicion and jealousy, and who on the other hand in their relations with one another show themselves so resourceful in consideration, self-control, delicacy, loyalty, pride, and friendship—once they go outside, where the strange, the stranger is found, they are not much better than uncaged beasts of prey. There they savor a freedom from all social constraints, they compensate themselves in the wilderness for the tension engendered by protracted confinement and enclosure within the peace of society, they go back to the innocent conscience of the beast of prey, as triumphant monsters who perhaps emerge from an atrocious procession of murder, arson, rape, and torture, exhilarated and undisturbed of soul, as if it were no more than a student’s prank, convinced they have provided the poets with a lot more material for song and praise. One cannot fail to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness: the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings—they all shared this need.”
[Genealogy I, 11.]
“[L]est the Apollinian tendency freeze all form into Egyptian rigidity, and in attempting to prescribe its orbit to each particular wave inhibit the movement of the lake, the Dionysian flood tide periodically destroys all the little circles in which the Apollinian will would confine Hellenism.”
[Birth of Tragedy 9.]
It is this extreme of the Apollinian, this “Egyptian rigidity”, of which most people think when they juxtapose Dionysus and Apollo in favour of the former. Indeed, it seems that you yourself made this “mistake”.
Nietzsche ties Egyptianism with Plato:
“We have paid dearly for the fact that this Athenian got his schooling from the Egyptians (or from the Jews in Egypt?).”
[Twilight, Ancients, 2.]
Here we see Plato, the Jews, and Christianity together - Christianity, which to most “Nietzscheans” is the epitome of “Apollinianism”. But this has little to do with the Apollo of the Greeks:
"The Bacchae acknowledges the failure of Euripides’ dramatic intentions when, in fact, these had already succeeded: Dionysus had already been driven from the tragic stage by a daemonic power speaking through Euripides. For in a certain sense Euripides was but a mask, while the divinity which spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo but a brand new daemon called Socrates. Thenceforward the real antagonism was to be between Dionysian spirit and the Socratic, and tragedy was to perish in the conflict.
[BT 12, with added emphasis.]
Here we may again compare two relations: Judaism - Christianity and Socrates - Plato. As Nietzsche writes;
“It [dialectic] can only be self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. One must have to enforce one’s right: until one reaches that point, one makes no use of it. The Jews were dialecticians for that reason; Reynard the Fox was one: what? and Socrates was as well?”
[Twilight, Socrates, 6.]
Of course, when Nietzsche lists “the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings”, it’s easy to see what they have in common: they were all warriors at root (and this “root” is the blond beast!).
“I have given to understand how it was that Socrates could repel: it is therefore all the more necessary to explain his fascination.— That he discovered a new kind of agon, that he became its first fencing master for the noble circles of Athens, is one point. He fascinated by appealing to the agonistic impulse of the Greeks—he introduced a variation into the wrestling match between young men and youths.”
[ibid., 8.]
This illustrates how far the agonistic impulse had strayed from its root, which was not the “wrestling match between young men and youths”, but the deadly war between Greeks and Trojans, for example. At this point, there were only two real powers left in Greece: Athens and Sparta. And Socrates lived in Athens. What wonder that Athens declined around this time, leaving only Sparta as a true militaristic polis.
This is why I wrote recently, on a certain message board, in reply to someone who said “[a]ll of his [the Aryan’s] arts begin as ancillaries to his warfare”;
“I agree. And I say his arts should not be allowed to become too independent from his warfare.”
It was this same person to whom I wrote the above in reply, who once wrote:
“Dance, like philosophy, began with physical combat. The first to keep the body in trim, the second to do the same for the mind.”
Let us lead dance and philosophy back to physical combat!
“Lead, like me, the flown-away virtue back to the earth - yea, back to body and life: that it may give to the earth its meaning, a human meaning!”
[Zarathustra, Of the Bestowing Virtue, 2.]
This meaning is of course the Ü b e r m e n s c h.
We fixin to get back into this one, ya’ll. Lemme take a shower and find me a coffee shop. Jakob, go fetch your homeboy saully and tell him to suit up.
Good one. Just so befitting my present archival state of mind. Just on our way to right wood, a place we had constantly gone to when my oldest son was just a boy.
The conversation veered from his plan to leave his wife and two kids to the matter of control.
Just off the cuff, and I will rehash the whole forum, is, what manner of device does control have within or without these definitional problems surrounding the will , the appolonian, the opposite, etc.
In other words does the will have some kind of hegemony over an intentional representation ( schopenhauer)by a willful object I e application (intentionality); as a reducible , albeit contentious and contingent possibility?(Heidegger)
I will decode later, as necessity dictates.
The codex describes an overall redu ibiliru from meaning to pre-figured deconstruction of stretched out elements for the purpose of rationalization to account for the missing layers.
Prom: the above is merely another form of representation descriptive of it’s accompanying romantic idiom that powers the will.
So an antynom will not serve any purpose, or a collusion as it is described nowadays.
Let’s grin and bear each other’s description awhile, until meaning can be decoded to an extent that will reify at least to the point of a new take off, as Xunian , I believe said it originally.
I dunno about Jacob, but sully has been gone a very long time, is he still alive?
Whats more relevant right now is the “educated masses” Nietzsche speaks of in the will to power, I think, who form the putty for the artist tyrant to shape the future out of.
We see this now in the “woke” movement. I.e. the debt-crippled virtue-signallers, the new under class.
You, Prom, think you’re under-class, but you’re upper class. You have actual work, namely actual skills for which there is real demand in the physical plane, and no student debts, thus no owners. Most people coming out of college do so with so much debt that they can be 99 percent sure that they’ll always remain beholden to the banks, meaning, they are actually property of other humans. At that, the only way they can even get and hold a job that allows them to pay off the interests on their debt, is by virtue signalling, by being politically correct, i.e. by expressing a violent will to destroy American democracy and a hatred of the concepts of biology, and performing other very tiresome activities that serve only the interests of their owners.
When I first read of this in 2002 or so, I had no real picture of what precisely the nature of these educated masses would be. I was still fresh college dropout myself, dropped out of course because I was literally not allowed to express my thoughts, a command structure which was impossible for me to comply with. But, I still had a lot of my intellectual friends then and stuff and just didn’t really quite see yet what would become the case - what is the case now. Now that I do see, I see that there don’t seem to be a whole lot of solutions other than the one Nietzsche envisioned. And indeed this would amount to an absolute class division, except, not in the Marxist way - marxism merely serves to solidify the slave class qua its being property of the upper classes. Which aren’t so much defined by their capital as by their will to play with humanity, with human nature, as one plays with a chemistry set. Different nuances. There isn’t gong to be a dialectic, there is just going to be an Egyptian styled hierarchy, of philosopher-lords governing billions of people who have been educated into illiteracy at their own expenses, and thus at the cost of every bit of what could have been their liberty if they had just followed a path like yours and learned a craft.
Meno I asked you before, can you at least spell my name correctly?
I am Jakob. You know this very well.
Im sure S is fine. He predicted an age of barbarism and advocated the acceleration of the collapse of our society. I guess he’s just sitting back grinning at how well it is going.
Sorry man , like someone duly noted I have been sauced lately.
But do You go along with the collapse theory?
Well, its hard to outright reject it.
For me it is a struggle, has been the past years, to keep my philosophic optimism, which is a kind of optimism that comes from having things planned out. Ive had things sort of planned out in my mind where it concerns the future of religion, for one thing. I have hopes of a peaceful solution, something to do justice to the hopes of the more lofty prophets and the more kind hearted believers, of which there are endless amounts.
And I think Im going to have to go back to that optimism, that plan of sorts, and thus, leave behind the idea that we will definitely return to an age of barbary. Its like I actively have to choose.
petition for leather boxers to become standard military issued uniform
Once at a Motorhead concert, a dude walked up to me and said that we must all put on diapers and red capes and go hunt down the emos.
Prometh might have an issue with that though.
Anyway, we didn’t do it.