When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Jakob » Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:21 am

Nietzsche at his most dangerous;


"The strong of the future.—To what extent necessity on the one hand and accident on the other have attained to conditions from which a stronger species may be reared: this we are now able to understand and to bring about consciously; we can now create those conditions under which such an elevation is possible.

Hitherto education has always aimed at the utility of society: not the greatest possible utility for the future, but the utility of the society actually extant. What people required were "instruments" for this purpose. Provided the wealth of forces were greater, it would be possible to think of a draft being made upon them, the aim of which would not be the utility of society, but some future utility.

The more people grasped to what extent the present form of society was in such a state of transition as sooner or later to be no longer able to exist for its own sake, but only as a means in the hands of a stronger race, the more this task would have to be brought forward.

The increasing belittlement of man is precisely the impelling power which leads one to think of[ the cultivation of a stronger race: a race which would have a surplus precisely there where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (will, responsibility, self-reliance, the ability to postulate aims for one's self).

The means would be those which history teaches: isolation by means of preservative interests which would be the reverse of those generally accepted; exercise in transvalued valuations; distance as pathos; a clean conscience in what to-day is most despised and most prohibited.

The levelling of the mankind of Europe is the great process which should not be arrested; it should even be accelerated. The necessity of cleaving gulfs, of distance, of the order of rank, is therefore imperative; but not the necessity of retarding the process above mentioned.

This levelled-down species requires justification as soon as it is attained: its justification is that it exists for the service of a higher and sovereign race which stands upon it and can only be elevated upon its shoulders to the task which it is destined to perform. Not only a ruling race whose task would be consummated in ruling alone: but a race with vital spheres of its own, with an overflow of energy for beauty, bravery, culture, and manners, even for the most abstract thought; a yea-saying race which would be able to allow itself every kind of great luxury—strong enough to be able to dispense with the tyranny of the imperatives of virtue, rich enough to be in no need of economy or pedantry; beyond good and evil; a forcing-house for rare and exceptional plants." [Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 898]



Pezer may be right that it has been indecent to publish these notes. Nietzsche may not have intended these brutal thoughts to be transmitted so matter-of-factly, for just any gangster to run with the rough gist of it. A poetic imperative may have been better.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby attano » Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:32 pm

Jakob wrote:Pezer may be right that it has been indecent to publish these notes. Nietzsche may not have intended these brutal thoughts to be transmitted so matter-of-factly, for just any gangster to run with the rough gist of it. A poetic imperative may have been better.


I am about sure that this was never meant for publication. I believe that because it is not the style one finds in published works, not even in some embryonic form. As for the content, those thoughts did emerge elsewhere. The first group of aphorisms in the book VII of BGE echoes this jotting.
Sometimes one can find considerations of this order expressed in more 'sympathetic' forms and, probably, N.’s attitude is comprehensively described in BGE 225. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove… well, yes, it’s brutal. In “those who better humanity” there is this ‘glorification’ of the Law of Manu (3) which is... unsettling. Personally, pictures of the WWII Warsaw getto come to mind every time I read that. And that is something we zealots have to live with.
«Va', va', povero untorello. Non sarai tu quello che spianti Milano.»
User avatar
attano
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm
Location: Europe

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:25 pm

attano wrote:
Jakob wrote:Pezer may be right that it has been indecent to publish these notes. Nietzsche may not have intended these brutal thoughts to be transmitted so matter-of-factly, for just any gangster to run with the rough gist of it. A poetic imperative may have been better.


I am about sure that this was never meant for publication. I believe that because it is not the style one finds in published works, not even in some embryonic form. As for the content, those thoughts did emerge elsewhere. The first group of aphorisms in the book VII of BGE echoes this jotting.
Sometimes one can find considerations of this order expressed in more 'sympathetic' forms and, probably, N.’s attitude is comprehensively described in BGE 225. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove… well, yes, it’s brutal. In “those who better humanity” there is this ‘glorification’ of the Law of Manu (3) which is... unsettling. Personally, pictures of the WWII Warsaw getto come to mind every time I read that. And that is something we zealots have to live with.


BGE is from 1886, whereas this note is from 1887. As such, it's rather echoed here:

"[A]ll ends and all utilities are only signs that a Will to Power has mastered a less powerful force, has impressed thereon out of its own self the meaning of a function; and the whole history of a 'Thing,' an organ, a custom, can on the same principle be regarded as a continuous 'sign-chain' of perpetually new interpretations and adjustments, whose causes, so far from needing to have even a mutual connection, sometimes follow and alternate with each other absolutely haphazard. Similarly, the evolution of a 'thing,' of a custom, is anything but its progressus to an end, still less a logical and direct progressus attained with the minimum expenditure of energy and cost: it is rather the succession of processes of subjugation, more or less profound, more or less mutually independent, which operate on the thing itself; it is, further, the resistance which in each case invariably displayed this subjugation, the Protean wriggles by way of defence and reaction, and, further, the results of successful counter-efforts. The form is fluid, but the meaning is even more so—even inside every individual organism the case is the same: with every genuine growth of the whole, the 'function' of the individual organs becomes shifted,—in certain cases a partial perishing of these organs, a diminution of their numbers (for instance, through annihilation of the connecting members), can be a symptom of growing strength and perfection. What I mean is this: even partial loss of utility, decay, and degeneration, loss of function and purpose, in a word, death, appertain to the conditions of the genuine progressus; which always appears in the shape of a will and way to greater power, and is always realised at the expense of innumerable smaller powers. The magnitude of a 'progress' is gauged by the greatness of the sacrifice that it requires: humanity as a mass sacrificed to the prosperity of the one stronger species of Man—that would be a progress." (GM II 12, Levy edition.)

My own suggestion, of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Meno_ » Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:33 pm

Now we are getting somewhere! The sacrafice. !

The allusion may be prototypical, for in the case of Mayans, 3 persons climbed the pyramid, the king, the hero , and the priest, to sacrafice to the sun, ( not the son)- albeit there may be a connection) with the hero sacraficed.

Nothing new or entirely unique there.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby attano » Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:31 am

Zeroeth Nature wrote:BGE is from 1886, whereas this note is from 1887. As such, it's rather echoed here:

If "echoing" necessarily implies occurrence after something - as, actually, physical echoes do - then ok... Regardless, as much as they are related, it seems to me more a case of overlapping than sharing the same subject. What I see in your quote is mainly a legislative function of WTP and its dynamics. Jakob's quote is more about a stronger species and sketches something like caste system - and there are those most interesting paragraphs about the "levelling of mankind in Europe" that would become the precondition for the future creation of two races. Anyway, yours is a most beautiful quote.

Zeroeth Nature wrote:My own suggestion[/url], of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!

I tend to agree on this (half-seriously), but I believe the criteria would be more complex and oriented to sort people according to ascending and descending characters - and probably that would be determined through the school of suffering. Besides, when considering rearing, the question about N. and Lamarckism almost inevitably comes to the surface. In the past I was adamant that N. rejected Lamarckism in favour of what we may call evolution orthodoxy. Nowadays I believe he was very strongly inclined to Lamarckism, to the point of being in pain not to openly embrace it. For the case in point, a lamarckian stance would imply that indeed the sons bear the sins of the fathers. That would remain on open question when looking at Jakob's quote, while, in the case of the Manu's chandala, Lamarckism is implied.

@Meno_: I don't agree, killing is not goal here. Then, as for the value of ritual sacrifice, there is at least one clear paragraph (no time to check on my quotes today) in the Antichrist.
«Va', va', povero untorello. Non sarai tu quello che spianti Milano.»
User avatar
attano
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm
Location: Europe

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby perpetualburn » Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:56 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:My own suggestion[/url], of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!



What about all those that don't believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong? Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don't affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?

I'm also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? ("let your peace be a victory" in the "good war")... Let all wars from now on be "good wars"?
As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

"There, where the state CEASETH—pray look thither, my brethren! Do ye not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman?" -N

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:35 pm

attano says:

"@Meno_: I don't agree, killing is not goal here. Then, as for the value of ritual sacrifice, there is at least one clear paragraph (no time to check on my quotes today) in the Antichrist."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>


I agree, but as things go, as You suggested that Lamarkism and behavior may not either be absolute contrarian concepts, the archetypes could not possibly suggest either an absolute construction, or a defensive deconstruction against either adulation ( The Christ) or the negative (The antichrist)

Considering the basis of such semantic logistical method to solve an ontological problem; things may become clearer.

Sacrafice on the phenomenological level may occur as an obvious daily affair,with believers in the soul not really posing a threat to material acquisition in the sense of trending or transvaluing the ideal into pragmatic utility , a reductive effort that Marxism tried to counterbalance ; through the world.( and it appearently hasn't worked)- mass sacrifice is the preferred method of silent victimization, where the poor are being progressively impoverished at they're own expense. Such are manipulated in the name of monetary policy and supply demand functions.

There are millions of families, including hungry children, even now dying of malnutrition and allied illnesses.


These are the real martyrs, the silent sufferers, while tradition has it that price control methods have been noted as vulgar as dumping excess food into the sea to control prices

So with the advent of 'democracy' , 'sacrifice' has taken on a less delible look, one that has reduced to lower levels of participatory mystique.


But what I really wanted to imply and focus on is the sacraficial shift of religious unto socio economic transformations and how they effect the transition from an idyll of sacrificial motive from Abrahamism to it's paralogical narratives, and that idea is not present in 'The Antichrist'
, at least not to my knowledge. That archaic point of view could opine Lamark to it's most advantaged politically derived suggestion, in order to maximize the perception to the initial motive of reducing scientism to the the least misunderstood level.

That is like converting the social economic theories toward minimalist Freudian economies of the will, to enhance the traditional view around social economic reality.
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:46 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
attano wrote:
Jakob wrote:Pezer may be right that it has been indecent to publish these notes. Nietzsche may not have intended these brutal thoughts to be transmitted so matter-of-factly, for just any gangster to run with the rough gist of it. A poetic imperative may have been better.


I am about sure that this was never meant for publication. I believe that because it is not the style one finds in published works, not even in some embryonic form. As for the content, those thoughts did emerge elsewhere. The first group of aphorisms in the book VII of BGE echoes this jotting.
Sometimes one can find considerations of this order expressed in more 'sympathetic' forms and, probably, N.’s attitude is comprehensively described in BGE 225. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove… well, yes, it’s brutal. In “those who better humanity” there is this ‘glorification’ of the Law of Manu (3) which is... unsettling. Personally, pictures of the WWII Warsaw getto come to mind every time I read that. And that is something we zealots have to live with.


BGE is from 1886, whereas this note is from 1887. As such, it's rather echoed here:

"[A]ll ends and all utilities are only signs that a Will to Power has mastered a less powerful force, has impressed thereon out of its own self the meaning of a function; and the whole history of a 'Thing,' an organ, a custom, can on the same principle be regarded as a continuous 'sign-chain' of perpetually new interpretations and adjustments, whose causes, so far from needing to have even a mutual connection, sometimes follow and alternate with each other absolutely haphazard. Similarly, the evolution of a 'thing,' of a custom, is anything but its progressus to an end, still less a logical and direct progressus attained with the minimum expenditure of energy and cost: it is rather the succession of processes of subjugation, more or less profound, more or less mutually independent, which operate on the thing itself; it is, further, the resistance which in each case invariably displayed this subjugation, the Protean wriggles by way of defence and reaction, and, further, the results of successful counter-efforts. The form is fluid, but the meaning is even more so—even inside every individual organism the case is the same: with every genuine growth of the whole, the 'function' of the individual organs becomes shifted,—in certain cases a partial perishing of these organs, a diminution of their numbers (for instance, through annihilation of the connecting members), can be a symptom of growing strength and perfection. What I mean is this: even partial loss of utility, decay, and degeneration, loss of function and purpose, in a word, death, appertain to the conditions of the genuine progressus; which always appears in the shape of a will and way to greater power, and is always realised at the expense of innumerable smaller powers. The magnitude of a 'progress' is gauged by the greatness of the sacrifice that it requires: humanity as a mass sacrificed to the prosperity of the one stronger species of Man—that would be a progress." (GM II 12, Levy edition.)

My own suggestion, of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!

NM
Last edited by WendyDarling on Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8755
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby attano » Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:13 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
What about all those that don't believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong? Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don't affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?

Well, let’s ‘sacrifice’ those too. No… seriously, it’s really not about killing. The idea is to have a race of slaves to prop those who are ‘superior’, and I guess their beliefs would not be the main criterion (it's not about ideology either). Sacrifice here means that these people are expendable with a view to a greater good. In some economics perspective we could call that ‘operational costs’, or even ‘investment’, though the victims will by no means reap the benefits.
I am not trying to make it any more palatable than it sounds, but whoever has even a modest experience in some working environment, can see that large organisations do have these expendable members. Obviously, they need not to die, but neither need they in N.’s plan (but if that happens… well, no big deal). And as for ‘dragging the strong’, as soon as there is some predicament, let’s call that ‘crisis’, those people are ditched.
I guess this is nothing you haven’t seen in your lifetime.

Then, no, it’s not about an afterlife, it’s about a comeback. More of the same, no qualitative difference. And, please, consider that in N.’s view individuals are by no means what people mean by the word. The only ‘reality’ would be the ER itself.
Actually, I am kind of oversimplifying here, there are some private notes where the man considered how much a belief in the ER would affect people's life-view, the ramifications this core belief would spread. In a way, if you focus just on the process, that would be analogous to the destruction triggered by the death of God, but unlike that in a life-affirming sense.

perpetualburn wrote:I'm also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? ("let your peace be a victory" in the "good war")... Let all wars from now on be "good wars"?

This is interesting and I have no simple, quick answer to that.
As a tentative answer, let’s say that victory is what feels like it and one would know how much that is ‘real’.
At the end of the day, your questions can be said to be ‘the truth’. But, then, you may also want to question the value of truth itself.
What do you know of the character of existence in all its phases to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of absolute distrust, or of absolute trustfulness? In case, however, of both being necessary, much trusting and much distrusting, whence then should science derive the absolute belief, the conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than anything else, even than every other conviction? This conviction could not have arisen if truth and untruth had both continually proved themselves to be useful: as is the case. […] it should seem—and it does seem—as if life were laid out with a view to appearance, I mean, with a view to error deceit, dissimulation, delusion, self-delusion; and when on the other hand it is a matter of fact that the great type of life has always manifested itself on the side of the most unscrupulous πολύτροποι.
(GS, 344)


@Meno_
Man, you pack a lot of stuff in there. I have to confess that I could not grasp all that you wrote. I guess that when you point out that, in fact, this mass of servants exists already, and it’s not some deranged fairy tale, we agree. And, yes, the white lie of some kingdom of justice awaiting it is what helps them to carry on. Although, let’s be frank, a lot of people do not really believe that. They just content themselves with thinking that they are ‘decent’. And, honestly, I guess we all do that, if only for some time.
«Va', va', povero untorello. Non sarai tu quello che spianti Milano.»
User avatar
attano
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm
Location: Europe

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:13 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
Zeroeth Nature wrote:My own suggestion[/url], of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!


What about all those that don't believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong?


90% is just a single decimation. :wink:


Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don't affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?


No, I don't think not affirming the ER necessarily translates to a belief in an afterlife; so yes, I would also include (though not necessarily in the 90 percent—see above) those who don't affirm, if not the ER, then at least the abysmal thought.


I'm also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? ("let your peace be a victory" in the "good war")... Let all wars from now on be "good wars"?


Yes, "the short peace":

"Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza's naiveté; Descartes' also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—" (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:36 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
perpetualburn wrote:
Zeroeth Nature wrote:My own suggestion[/url], of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!


What about all those that don't believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong?


90% is just a single decimation. :wink:


Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don't affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?


No, I don't think not affirming the ER necessarily translates to a belief in an afterlife; so yes, I would also include (though not necessarily in the 90 percent—see above) those who don't affirm, if not the ER, then at least the abysmal thought.


I'm also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? ("let your peace be a victory" in the "good war")... Let all wars from now on be "good wars"?


Yes, "the short peace":

"Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza's naiveté; Descartes' also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—" (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)

..



Similar, to Rheingold.
too many formus too little time!



https://youtu.be/LfHunhfGzio
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Jakob » Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:09 am

Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby attano » Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:23 am

Oh! You made me have one of those penny-drop moments.
I just realised that some day this forum will become a clash of vlogs.

(nice, anyway, but are you sure you want to wear that bonnet?)
«Va', va', povero untorello. Non sarai tu quello che spianti Milano.»
User avatar
attano
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm
Location: Europe

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:06 pm

I think Jakob's making a logical error. If I consider the fear of permadeath a mark of weakness, then why should I prefer it to rebirth? In fact, I would gladly be reborn in the Hellrealms!

Those who believe in the immortality of the soul usually also believe in a Heavenly afterlife, which may require a stay in Purgatory or even in Hell (and life on Earth is itself often looked at as some kind of Purgatory or Hell), but which is a life of eternal bliss. It's basically only Buddhism—which rejects the immortality of the soul—which teaches that even such Heavenly afterlives don't last forever and even the Gods in those Heavens (the Christian and Islamic Gods, for example) must eventually die, and will then probably be reborn in a lower realm (because the intense bliss of the Godrealms is not very conducive to enlightenment).

I don't think weaklings would really prefer permadeath to rebirth. For example, my—now ex—girlfriend used to dream of permadeath, until I pointed out to her that she wouldn't be able to enjoy it (experience the contrast between life and permadeath), which was what drove her so desperate as to travel 5,000 miles to come and stay with me for three years. What she'd dreamt of was actually a kind of Heaven: eternal peace! And I think this is typical.

That laughter at the end is really maniacal, by the way.
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Meno_ » Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:25 pm

attano wrote:
perpetualburn wrote:
What about all those that don't believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong? Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don't affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?

Well, let’s ‘sacrifice’ those too. No… seriously, it’s really not about killing. The idea is to have a race of slaves to prop those who are ‘superior’, and I guess their beliefs would not be the main criterion (it's not about ideology either). Sacrifice here means that these people are expendable with a view to a greater good. In some economics perspective we could call that ‘operational costs’, or even ‘investment’, though the victims will by no means reap the benefits.
I am not trying to make it any more palatable than it sounds, but whoever has even a modest experience in some working environment, can see that large organisations do have these expendable members. Obviously, they need not to die, but neither need they in N.’s plan (but if that happens… well, no big deal). And as for ‘dragging the strong’, as soon as there is some predicament, let’s call that ‘crisis’, those people are ditched.
I guess this is nothing you haven’t seen in your lifetime.

Then, no, it’s not about an afterlife, it’s about a comeback. More of the same, no qualitative difference. And, please, consider that in N.’s view individuals are by no means what people mean by the word. The only ‘reality’ would be the ER itself.
Actually, I am kind of oversimplifying here, there are some private notes where the man considered how much a belief in the ER would affect people's life-view, the ramifications this core belief would spread. In a way, if you focus just on the process, that would be analogous to the destruction triggered by the death of God, but unlike that in a life-affirming sense.

perpetualburn wrote:I'm also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? ("let your peace be a victory" in the "good war")... Let all wars from now on be "good wars"?

This is interesting and I have no simple, quick answer to that.
As a tentative answer, let’s say that victory is what feels like it and one would know how much that is ‘real’.
At the end of the day, your questions can be said to be ‘the truth’. But, then, you may also want to question the value of truth itself.
What do you know of the character of existence in all its phases to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of absolute distrust, or of absolute trustfulness? In case, however, of both being necessary, much trusting and much distrusting, whence then should science derive the absolute belief, the conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than anything else, even than every other conviction? This conviction could not have arisen if truth and untruth had both continually proved themselves to be useful: as is the case. […] it should seem—and it does seem—as if life were laid out with a view to appearance, I mean, with a view to error deceit, dissimulation, delusion, self-delusion; and when on the other hand it is a matter of fact that the great type of life has always manifested itself on the side of the most unscrupulous πολύτροποι.
(GS, 344)


@Meno_
Man, you pack a lot of stuff in there. I have to confess that I could not grasp all that you wrote. I guess that when you point out that, in fact, this mass of servants exists already, and it’s not some deranged fairy tale, we agree. And, yes, the white lie of some kingdom of justice awaiting it is what helps them to carry on. Although, let’s be frank, a lot of people do not really believe that. They just content themselves with thinking that they are ‘decent’. And, honestly, I guess we all do that, if only for some time.




Hi Attano:


There is a simpler way to look at it:


The Antichrist need not eve. need to be opened, for Sacrafice of the absolute can be read on it's face, as the negation of Greek ideals. But it is more, of shows a relation of proof between God and Man, a proof pf love: the angel appeared both times, in the case of Abraham it was tappearance to Abraham, who would and could naturally desist from such ultimate proof of love, buy god? He could mot allow himself to be let off, since OT was the test of the literal proof of love toward his very own , a test of which was his own test of a doubt about the intent toward his own creation.

The angel could only appear as a symbol, a metaphor of the whole parable of being as a creation of love! That is what it's stake.

The Antichrist is a return to a negation of that, a destruction of the Greek elements that the Talmud incorporated into it'self, that bound god, to question the very reasons behind and beneath the whole idea of the test of faith, based on formidable gaps between the creature, the Creation and god. Here, the split between the first and the second covenent, had to ignore the purported effects of god's denied fear of life, and take on the appearance of a real albeit opposite force to content with, where both, work, ultimately later on, with a new structural heresy involved: the Gnosticism prescription in between working things out, hermetically but without proof through temptation and deliverance through redemption.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby perpetualburn » Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:26 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:I don't think weaklings would really prefer permadeath to rebirth. For example, my—now ex—girlfriend used to dream of permadeath, until I pointed out to her that she wouldn't be able to enjoy it (experience the contrast between life and permadeath), which was what drove her so desperate as to travel 5,000 miles to come and stay with me for three years. What she'd dreamt of was actually a kind of Heaven: eternal peace! And I think this is typical.


There's definitely a certain percentage of the population that hopes there's nothing after death so they can just be "rid of themselves" as Jakob says. But this isn't really that much different than hoping for an "eternal" life after death, in the sense that both are logically impossible. Most people probably just want the easily obtained bliss of some promised after-life.

However, the only "eternity" there is, the only one that can even be experienced is what you quoted earlier:

""Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza's naiveté; Descartes' also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—" (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)"

Even your ex-gf's "eternal peace" was a transient peace as it was experienced in a dream.
As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

"There, where the state CEASETH—pray look thither, my brethren! Do ye not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman?" -N

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
Zeroeth Nature wrote:I don't think weaklings would really prefer permadeath to rebirth. For example, my—now ex—girlfriend used to dream of permadeath, until I pointed out to her that she wouldn't be able to enjoy it (experience the contrast between life and permadeath), which was what drove her so desperate as to travel 5,000 miles to come and stay with me for three years. What she'd dreamt of was actually a kind of Heaven: eternal peace! And I think this is typical.


There's definitely a certain percentage of the population that hopes there's nothing after death so they can just be "rid of themselves" as Jakob says. But this isn't really that much different than hoping for an "eternal" life after death, in the sense that both are logically impossible. Most people probably just want the easily obtained bliss of some promised after-life.

However, the only "eternity" there is, the only one that can even be experienced is what you quoted earlier:

""Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza's naiveté; Descartes' also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—" (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)"

Even your ex-gf's "eternal peace" was a transient peace as it was experienced in a dream.


Well, I meant a daydream, but yeah. The only true eternity is indeed Blake's "eternity in a moment" (also Zarathustra's gateway "Moment", ancient Greek kairos, etc.).

Of the percentage of the population which hopes there's nothing after death, I think the greatest part hasn't thought it through (like my ex). And I'm not sure it's logically impossible; why do you say that?
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Jakob » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:17 pm

Ollie youre talking about Muslims and Christians. Not about Chinamen or Indians.

Good to know you'd be glad to be reborn though.
Ive just made several videos about the ER + the Big Bang/Heat Death idea, and about the extreme harshness of the idea of reincarnation, which means having to go through endless deaths. Hardly for the weak. This one is just uploading now and will hopefully premiere at midnight.



And Attano Im not wearing a bonnet in this one. A scarf. Not on my head either.

Perpetual - please give the logical argument that says eternity of identity is impossible, without basing yourself on the outdated billiard ball model of causality, which is also what sustains the ER, but is pertinently false, as I explain the video.

Glad Blake comes up. He says that the eternal loves the structures of time.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:58 pm

Jakob wrote:Ollie youre talking about Muslims and Christians. Not about Chinamen or Indians.


I think I'm talking about exoteric Buddhists and Hindus as well as exoteric Muslims and Christians:

"Pure Land Buddhism [...] is a broad branch of Mahayana Buddhism and one of the most widely practiced traditions of Buddhism in East Asia. [...] Pure Land Buddhism is built on the belief that we will never have a world which is not corrupt, so we must strive for re-birth in another plane, referred to as the 'Pure Land'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

"The followers of Dvaita (dualistic) schools, in moksha state, identify individual 'soul, self' as distinct from Brahman but infinitesimally close, and after attaining moksha expect to spend eternity in a loka (heaven)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Purusharthas_(objectives_of_human_life)


Good to know you'd be glad to be reborn though.


Thanks. Even in late 2017, when I'd just experienced my first birth throe of the Babe of the Abyss (that is, other than on lesser psychedelics—on whose leaving one feeling gross I disagree with perpetualburn—and a few other unheimliche Empfindungen ("uncanny sensations/experiences"), going back well into my childhood)—even back then, I already wrote:

'Well, for me that [there would not be infinitely many rebirths] would take away the best part: the suggestion that even infinitely many rebirths would be a blessing if spent on trying and liberating others; that such a rebirth is not a burden at all, but on the contrary! that it's not even a necessary evil, but a boon!—perhaps even the greatest of boons...'
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=424608#p424608
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Meno_ » Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:35 pm

"Good to know you'd be glad to be reborn"



Good news guys,






You have to die and reborn in this life, so that you can be reborn to eternal life.



"https://biblehub.com/john/5-24.htm


and same John ( the disciple that loved Him):


"In John, those who accept Christ can possess life "here and now" as well as in eternity, for they have "passed from death to life", as in

John 5:24: "He who hears my word, and believes him that sent me, has eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:13 am, edited 4 times in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:54 pm

Jakob wrote:Ive just made several videos about the ER + the Big Bang/Heat Death idea, and about the extreme harshness of the idea of reincarnation, which means having to go through endless deaths. Hardly for the weak.


Expectations are supposed to be true. That's what decides whether they are good or bad. True expectations = good. False expectations = bad. So while prognosing that the future is bleak can be a sign of certain kind of ability (the ability to withstand unpleasant possibilities), it can also be a sign that an ability that happens to be more important is lacking (the ability to make accurate predictions.) The purpose of an expectation is to inform you about what's going to happen in the future so that you can better prepare yourself, not to test your ability to withstand unpleasant thoughts. In other words, if the future is extremely pleasant, but your prognoses are extremely negative, you are doing a bad job.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Jakob » Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:30 am

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
Jakob wrote:Ollie youre talking about Muslims and Christians. Not about Chinamen or Indians.


I think I'm talking about exoteric Buddhists and Hindus as well as exoteric Muslims and Christians:

"Pure Land Buddhism [...] is a broad branch of Mahayana Buddhism and one of the most widely practiced traditions of Buddhism in East Asia. [...] Pure Land Buddhism is built on the belief that we will never have a world which is not corrupt, so we must strive for re-birth in another plane, referred to as the 'Pure Land'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

"The followers of Dvaita (dualistic) schools, in moksha state, identify individual 'soul, self' as distinct from Brahman but infinitesimally close, and after attaining moksha expect to spend eternity in a loka (heaven)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Purusharthas_(objectives_of_human_life)

I agree with you that this belief is loathsome as well as with perpetual that its object is impossible. The two often go together.

Good to know you'd be glad to be reborn though.


Thanks. Even in late 2017, when I'd just experienced my first birth throe of the Babe of the Abyss (that is, other than on lesser psychedelics—on whose leaving one feeling gross I disagree with perpetualburn—

I disagree with him on that entirely as well. The only truly filthy drug Ive ever taken is ecstasy. That's truly self-rape. What a disgusting invention.
Psychedelics are holy, they never fail to make truth more apparent. Ive not taken them for some years, as since my discovery of VO Ive had no need for any clarification or additional bliss of the soul. last thing I did was Ayahuasca in Brazil with Phoneutria. But all its goddess (whom I must praise, she is noble and fair) told me, despite Phone's father the shaman giving me a double dose, was; VO is the real thing, go back home and teach it. (and an urgent personal advice, which proved more deeply valuable than I could express).
It did clean my bowels very thoroughly as well which was helpful. I can recommend it, no disrespect intended at all, even for that reason alone.

and a few other unheimliche Empfindungen ("uncanny sensations/experiences"), going back well into my childhood)—even back then, I already wrote:

'Well, for me that [there would not be infinitely many rebirths] would take away the best part: the suggestion that even infinitely many rebirths would be a blessing if spent on trying and liberating others; that such a rebirth is not a burden at all, but on the contrary! that it's not even a necessary evil, but a boon!—perhaps even the greatest of boons...'
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=424608#p424608

Im almost certain that reincarnation is real and follows the logic of value-bestowing. The greatest investigative psychedelic, on that note, is Merkabatic Kabbalah.
Not that I expect anyone to ever take my word on anything. That is likely because Im usually uncannily right (and make (I should out of decency say almost) no logical errors) and the truth is always unexpected.
Lo and behold.

(Always nice to be on friendly terms with you. I think the philosophy you teach to the internet people is simply not meant for me)
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Jakob » Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:44 am

Meno_ wrote:"Good to know you'd be glad to be reborn"



Good news guys,






You have to die and reborn in this life, so that you can be reborn to eternal life.



"https://biblehub.com/john/5-24.htm


and same John ( the disciple that loved Him):


"In John, those who accept Christ can possess life "here and now" as well as in eternity, for they have "passed from death to life", as in

John 5:24: "He who hears my word, and believes him that sent me, has eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

Dear Meno,
I absolutely loathe these horrifically weak and stupendously arrogant ethics of christianity. It makes me sick too read these sentences.
The heaviest task humanity has before it is to apologize to the Earth for believing in such ridiculously undignified falsities.
Last edited by Jakob on Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Meno_ » Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:45 am

. erased but to follow with something more sensible
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9047
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Postby Jakob » Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:48 am

Hahahah.


I have no objection to you having your beliefs. I truly recommend that you persevere in them, as it will make us more distant from each other.
There is no need to enforce caste-systems, the unclean naturally are governed by their own laws, as are the exalted.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]