Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Study Guide: Will to Power

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Study Guide: Will to Power Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:17 pm

1. What Nietzsche Said:


"Philosophers are accustomed to speak of the will as though it were the best-known thing in the world; indeed, Schopenhauer has given us to understand that the will alone is really known to us, absolutely and completely known, without deduction or addition. But it again and again seems to me that in this case Schopenhauer also only did what philosophers are in the habit of doing—he seems to have adopted a POPULAR PREJUDICE and exaggerated it. Willing seems to me to be above all something COMPLICATED, something that is a unity only in name—and it is precisely in a name that popular prejudice lurks, which has got the mastery over the inadequate precautions of philosophers in all ages. So let us for once be more cautious, let us be “unphilosophical”: let us say that in all willing there is firstly a plurality of sensations, namely, the sensation of the condition “AWAY FROM WHICH we go,” the sensation of the condition “TOWARDS WHICH we go,” the sensation of this “FROM” and “TOWARDS” itself, and then besides, an accompanying muscular sensation, which, even without our putting in motion “arms and legs,” commences its action by force of habit, directly we “will” anything. Therefore, just as sensations (and indeed many kinds of sensations) are to be recognized as ingredients of the will, so, in the second place, thinking is also to be recognized; in every act of the will there is a ruling thought;—and let us not imagine it possible to sever this thought from the “willing,” as if the will would then remain over! In the third place, the will is not only a complex of sensation and thinking, but it is above all an EMOTION, and in fact the emotion of the command. That which is termed “freedom of the will” is essentially the emotion of supremacy in respect to him who must obey: “I am free, 'he' must obey"—this consciousness is inherent in every will; and equally so the straining of the attention, the straight look which fixes itself exclusively on one thing, the unconditional judgment that “this and nothing else is necessary now,” the inward certainty that obedience will be rendered—and whatever else pertains to the position of the commander. A man who WILLS commands something within himself which renders obedience, or which he believes renders obedience. But now let us notice what is the strangest thing about the will,—this affair so extremely complex, for which the people have only one name. Inasmuch as in the given circumstances we are at the same time the commanding AND the obeying parties, and as the obeying party we know the sensations of constraint, impulsion, pressure, resistance, and motion, which usually commence immediately after the act of will; inasmuch as, on the other hand, we are accustomed to disregard this duality, and to deceive ourselves about it by means of the synthetic term "I”: a whole series of erroneous conclusions, and consequently of false judgments about the will itself, has become attached to the act of willing—to such a degree that he who wills believes firmly that willing SUFFICES for action. Since in the majority of cases there has only been exercise of will when the effect of the command—consequently obedience, and therefore action—was to be EXPECTED, the APPEARANCE has translated itself into the sentiment, as if there were a NECESSITY OF EFFECT; in a word, he who wills believes with a fair amount of certainty that will and action are somehow one; he ascribes the success, the carrying out of the willing, to the will itself, and thereby enjoys an increase of the sensation of power which accompanies all success. "Freedom of Will"—that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order— who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his own will that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful “underwills” or under-souls—indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls—to his feelings of delight as commander. L'EFFET C'EST MOI. what happens here is what happens in every well-constructed and happy commonwealth, namely, that the governing class identifies itself with the successes of the commonwealth. In all willing it is absolutely a question of commanding and obeying, on the basis, as already said, of a social structure composed of many “souls", on which account a philosopher should claim the right to include willing- as-such within the sphere of morals—regarded as the doctrine of the relations of supremacy under which the phenomenon of “life" manifests itself." [BGE, 19]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:28 pm

2. What Heidegger said on N.'s WTP:


"Preservation and increase mark the fundamental traits oflife; these traits intrinsically belong together. The desire to grow, increase, is part of die essence oflife. 7b preserve life is to serve the increase of life. Any life that is restricted to mere preservation is already in decline. For living creatures, it is never the goal, for example, to secure lehensraum; rather it is the means to an increase oflife. Conversely, life that has been increased intensifies in
its turn the prior need for enlarging one's space. Increase, however, is only possible where a durable resource has already been preserved as something made secure and therefore only then capable of increase. Hence living things are linked by the two fundamental traits of increase and preservation, i.e., they are "complex structures of life." As points of view, values guide seeing in "regard to complex structures." Seeing is always a seeing by the glance of life, a glance which governs all living things. By setting the points of sight
for living things, life in its essence proves to be that which sets values (cf. The Will to Tower, no. 556, from 1885/6).

The "complex structures of life" are dependent on the conditions of a preservation and of a stability [Bestandigung], yet the dependence is such that stability [das Bestandige[ endures [besteht] only in order to become - through an increase - tmstable [em Unhestandiges]. The duration of these complex structures is based on the interrelation of increase and preservation. Hence it is a comparative duration. The duration of living things, i.e., of life, is
"relatively enduring."

According to N'ietzsche, value is "the viewpoint of the conditions for preservation -increase in regard to the complex structures, relatively enduring, of life in the midst of becoming." Here, and generally in the conceptual language of Nietzsche's metaphysics, the stark indefinite word "becoming" does not signify just any flux of all things, nor the mere alteration of states, and not just any development or vague evolution. Becoming means the
transition from something to something, diat movement and being moved which Leibniz in the Monadology (§ 1 1) calls cbangements natureb, which govern the mis qua ens, i.e., the ens percipient et appetens. Nietzsche takes this governance as die fundamental trait of all reality, i.e., he takes it in the very broad sense of beings. He understands that which dius determines beings in their essentia as the "will to power."

When Nietzsche concludes his characterization of the essence of value with the word "becoming," that final word points to the essential realm where values and the dispensation of value generally and uniquely belong. "To become" - that, for Nietzsche, is "the will to power." So the "will to power" is the fundamental trait of "life," which Nietzsche also often uses in a broad sense, by which it has been equated within metaphysics (cf. Hegel)
to "becoming." Will to power, becoming, life, and being in the broadest sense have the same meaning in Nietzsche's language {The Will to Power, no. 582, from 1885/6 and no. 689 from 1888). Inside of becoming, life, i.e., the living, takes shape as centers of the will to power that are active at particular times. These centers are therefore structures of ruling power. It
is as such that Nietzsche understands art, the state, religion, science, society. That is why he can also say (The Will to Power, no. 7 1 5) "'Value' is essentially the viewpoint for the gain and loss of these centers of ruling power" (namely, with regard to their ruling character).

The title "The Will to Power," according to this view, presupposes two different elements that were subsequently put together to form a relationship: willing on one side and power on the other. When we finally come to ask about the ground of the will to power, not just to rephrase it but also to clarify it, what emerges is the sense that because it is a striving for something that is not yet a possession, it originates from a feeling of lack.
Striving, the exercise of mastery, and the feeling of lack are states (mental faculties) and representational modes that we grasp through psychological knowledge. For this reason, an explanation of the essence of the will to power helongs to psychology.

What we have just set forth about the will to power and the possibility of knowing it is indeed clear, but in every respect such thinking misses what Nietzsche thinks with the phrase "will to power" and how he thinks it. The title "Will to Power" provides a fundamental word of Nietzsche's ultimate philosophy, which can therefore be fairly described as the metaphysics of the will to power. What the will to power means in Nietzsche's sense, we will never understand by means of popular ideas about will and power, but rather only by way of a reflection on metaphysical thinking, and that means also reflecting on the entirety of the history of Western metaphysics.

The will is not a desire and not a simple striving for something; rather, will is in itself command (cf, Tbtis Spoke Zt/mtbustm, parts I and II; in addition, The Will to Power, no. 66ti t from 1888). Command has its essence in that fact that the commanding master is conscious that he has at his disposal the possibilities of effective action. What is commanded in the command is the realization of this disposal. In the command, the one giving die command (and not just the one carrying it out) is obedient to this disposal and to the
condition of having at his disposal: this is how he obeys himself. In this way, by continuing to risk himself, the one giving the command is superior to himself. 'lb command, which is to be carebilly distinguished from merely ordering others about, is to overcome oneself and is more difficult than obeying. Will is gathering oneself together for rhe task at hand. Only he who cannot obey himself must continue to be specifically subject to command.

Will strives for what it wills not just as for something that it does not yet have. Will already has what it wills. For will wills its willing. Its will is what it has willed. Will wills itself. It exceeds itself. In this way will as will wills above and beyond itself, and therefore at the same time it must bring itself beneath and behind itself. This is why Nietzsche can say (Tbe Will to Power, no. 675, from 1887/Cool: will ax all amounts to the will to become
stronger, the will to grow. . . " 1 1 ere "stronger" indicates "more power," and that means: only power. For the essence of power is to be master over the level of power attained at a particular time. Power is power only when and only for as long as it is an increase in power and commands for itself "more power." T) halt the increase of power only for a moment, merely to stand still atone level of power, is already rhe beginning of a decline in power.

Part of the essence of power is the ovepowering of itself. This overpowering belongs to and springs from power itself, since power is command and as command it empowers itself to overpower the level of power it has at any time. So power is indeed constantly on the way to power itself, but not as a will available for itself somewhere, not as a will which is trying (in the sense of striving) to come to power. Nor does power empower itself to overpower its level of power merely for the sake of the next level, but rather for this one reason alone: in order to seize hold of itself in the absolute character of its essence. To will, according to this definition of its essence, is much less a striving than striving is the residual or incipient form of will.

In the expression "Will to Power" the word "power" gives the essence of the mode in which will wills itself to the extent that it is command. As command, will joins itself to itself, i.e., to what it has willed. This self- gathering is the empowering of power. Will exists for itself no more than power for itself. Will and power, therefore, are not subsequently linked by
the will to power; rather, will, as the will to will, exists as the will to power in the sense of the empowerment of power. Power, however, has its essence in the fact that it stands in relation to will as the will that is inside the will. The will to power is the essence of power. It indicates the absolute essence of will which wills itself as sheer will.

Hence the will to power cannot be dropped in favor of a will to something else, e.g., the "will to nothing"; for this will too is still the will to will - that is what enables Nietzsche to say (On the Genealogy of Morals, Third Treatise, § i, from 1887): "it [the will] will will nothing rather than not will."

To "will nothing" in no way means to will the sheer absence of all reality, but rather precisely to will reality but to will it as a nullity everywhere and at every time and only in this way to will annihilation. In such willing, power is still securing for itself the possibility of command and the ability to be master.

As the essence of will, the essence of the will to power is the fundamental trait of all reality. Nietzsche writes (The Will to Power, no. 603, from 1888):
The will to power is "the inmost essence of being." Here "being" is used in accordance with the language of metaphysics: beings in general. As the fundamental character of beings, therefore, the essence of the will to power and the will to power itself are not to be ascertained through psychological observation; rather, it is the other way round: psychology itself gets its essence, i.e., the ability to set and to recognize its object, only through the
will to power. Hence Nietzsche does not understand the will to power psychologically, but rather the opposite: he gives psychology a new definition as the "morphology and doctrine of the development of the will to power" (Beyond Good and Evil, § 23).

Will, in general, amounts to the will to became stronger, the will to grow- and also to will "the means to that end" (The Will to Power, no. 675, from 1887/88).

The will to power esteems in that it constitutes the condition of increase and fixes the condition of preservation. In accordance with its essence, the will to power is the will that posits values. Values are the conditions of preservation-increase within the being of beings. The will to power, as soon as it comes to light specifically in its pure essence, is itself the ground and realm for the dispensation of value. The will to power has its ground not in a feeling of lack; rather, it is itself the ground of the most abundant \iibe>Teicbsten\ life. Life means here the will to will, "* Living'-, that already means 'to esteem'" (loc. cit.).

Since will is the overpowering of itself, no richness [ Reich tum\ of life will satisfy it. It has its power in overreaching [as Vherreichen] - namely, in reaching over its own will. Thus it, as the same, is constantly coming back unto itself as the Same. The mode in which beings {whose essentia is the will to power) in their entirety exist, their existentia, is the "eternal return of the same." The two fundamental terms of Nietzsche's metaphysics, "will to
power" and "eternal return of the same," determine beings in their being in accordance with the perspectives which have guided metaphysics since antiquity, the em qua ens in the sense of essentia and existentia. ..."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:04 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Will strives for what it wills not just as for something that it does
not yet have. Will already has what it wills. For will wills its
willing. Its will is what it has willed. Will wills itself. It exceeds
itself. In this way will as will wills above and beyond itself, and
therefore at the same time it must bring itself beneath and behind
itself.
Hogwash!

Willing is the act of directing the organism towards something not; ergo one projects the absence as a signpost in the chaos.
This projection becomes the idea(l)....power being one word for it.
Because consciousness is a looking back, while life is a towards entropy, what is willed is a fabrication of the mind, projected towards the unknown and yet to be determined as a reference point: an object/objective.
This object/objective, owing to the fact that it is a mental abstraction, can be anything and more importantly it can be something realistic or fantastic....or rather it can be more or less realistic, or more or less possible, or more or less in reference to the ongoing sensual world.

One can will to live forever or one can live for one more minute; one can Will to meet God, a towards God, or one can Will to meet his neighbor, a towards an otherness.
The only thing commanded are the aggregate energies at the disposal of the organism at any given time. One does not command his neighbor to be met; one commands himself towards a possible meeting.
The success or failure of the command is not a given; one cannot command himself to live forever.

Lyssa wrote:
The will is not a desire and not a simple striving for something;
rather, will is in itself command (cf, Tbtis Spoke Zt/mtbustm, parts I
and II; in addition, The Will to Power, no. 66ti t from 1888). Command
has its essence in that fact that the commanding master is conscious
that he has at his disposal the possibilities of effective action. What
is commanded in the command is the realization of this disposal. In the
command, the one giving die command (and not just the one carrying it
out) is obedient to this disposal and to the
condition of having at
his disposal: this is how he obeys himself. In this way, by continuing
to risk himself, the one giving the command is superior to himself. 'lb
command, which is to be carebilly distinguished from merely ordering
others about, is to overcome oneself and is more difficult than obeying.
Will is gathering oneself together for rhe task at hand. Only he who
cannot obey himself must continue to be specifically subject to command.
Bullshit!

"Risk himself" implies that the act and the actor are two different things and that risk is not a normal state of existing.
an organism is an exception to the rule; an ordering in the disordering, and so it is in a state of care....concern.....fear.....it is always at risk because it represents a resistance to the normal state.

The act IS the actor....and one "risks" one's self daily. One cannot but be in a state of risk, as life is a battle fought continuously. it is a continuous striving for self-maintenance and then towards self-growth.
One does not place himself at risk, one only increases or decreases risk.

There is no such state as "obeying one's self" or "not obeying one's self".
There is no self outside the act which is the commander.
The conscious brain is separated into agencies, each with a particular role.
As life is a part of the world perceiving itself, so too does a part of consciousness separate itself from the rest of conscious so as to perceive itself - to be self-conscious.
Every act is a selfish act, in that it is self manifest. The Action is the phenomenon, as all that exists is active and action made apparent.

A Will, therefore, and I repeat, is the agency which commands, if you will, or directs, being a more appropriate term, an organism's aggregate energies (activities) towards an object/objective.
A will is a lens, if you will, focusing the already flowing congruency towards a more particular direction.
The flux of interactivity is multi-directional and follows the path-of-least-resistance. It is only with the advent of this focusing mechanism we call the will where it is given a more focus direction, taking advantage of the efficiency synergy offers to gain power in the movement towards what is lacking. It is also only the will which can focus the emergent unity, the organism, toward a path-of-more-resistance by storing and accumulating energies so as to expend them in this way: as a means of overpowering more resistance and in this way gaining an advantage over other emergent unities.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:07 am

Oh for Pete's sake. more Nietzsche crap, people can't think for more than a minute without referencing him. There ought to be a rule against even mentioning his name, or quoting him, or referencing him, that's my two cents. He has become a crutch for weaklings, a partially faulty or broken compass for those who can't find their own path through the forest.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:54 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Will strives for what it wills not just as for something that it does
not yet have. Will already has what it wills. For will wills its
willing. Its will is what it has willed. Will wills itself. It exceeds
itself. In this way will as will wills above and beyond itself, and
therefore at the same time it must bring itself beneath and behind
itself.
Satyr> Hogwash!
Willing is the act of directing the organism towards something not; ergo one projects the absence as a signpost in the chaos.
This projection becomes the idea(l)....power being one word for it.
This object/objective, owing to the fact that it is a mental abstraction, can be anything and more importantly it can be something realistic or fantastic....or rather it can be more or less realistic, or more or less possible, or more or less in reference to the ongoing sensual world.

"The mechanistic world is imagined only as sight and touch imagine a world (as "moved") --so as to be calculable-- thus causal unities are invented, "things" (atoms) whose effect remains constant (--transference of the false concept of subject to the concept of the atom)...
If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power is not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos --the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge--" [WTP, 635]

By Will to Power, N. then, does not mean Power as something like an object or idea(l) or some thing that can be quite as easily have been anything else, no; for him, everything that is, wants to become master over everything else, a self-assertion, it wills its self over everything, its will wills itself, an affirmative self-assertion;

"Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to DISCHARGE its strength—life itself is WILL TO POWER; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent RESULTS thereof. In short, here, as everywhere else, let us beware of SUPERFLUOUS teleological principles!—one of which is the instinct of self- preservation (we owe it to Spinoza’s inconsistency). ..." [BGE, 13; cf. also BGE, 36 - will to procreation, nutrition, etc. are all merely forms and expressions of the basic, fundamental form of the will - the will to power.]

So when Heid. says, "In this way will as will wills above and beyond itself, and therefore at the same time it must bring itself beneath and behind itself.", he means, 'the' Will is already a,

"vast, interlocking struggle of indefinite "power quanta"", "constantly changing power constellations (Machtconstellationen) (KGW VII 3, 338; VIII 3, 162-3; VIII 2, 55)."

So, you are able to over-go/exceed only by becoming your own downgoing first. WTP means you 'fix/lock/obey/subjugate/dominate' yourself like a step to climb up and over yourself, beyond yourself... appropriating yourself for yourself; this exceeding is an overcoming/downgoing at the same time. The WTP is this pathos ad inf. The metaphor N. uses for the WTP in TSZ is a "self-rolling wheel". A certain point on a wheel has to go down before it can exceed to another spot and then go down again... It locks itself and rolls forward... that is how a relatively "stable" center and the semblance of a "unity" is formed, a self-organization - power. This self-organized unit then continues to appropriate everything else in its way... the wheel locks and rolls itself fwd., because its will wills itself foremost. WTP is this self-joy.
That is, every Willing is a Willing of itself, the willing-to-power of itself, the willing-to-power of itself in its will to anything else... God, reality, fantasy...


Lyssa wrote:
this is how he obeys himself. In this way, by continuing
to risk himself, the one giving the command is superior to himself. 'lb
command, which is to be carebilly distinguished from merely ordering
others about, is to overcome oneself and is more difficult than obeying.
Will is gathering oneself together for rhe task at hand. Only he who
cannot obey himself must continue to be specifically subject to command.
Satyr> Bullshit!
"Risk himself" implies that the act and the actor are two different things and that risk is not a normal state of existing.

"By continuing to risk himself", he implies, every commanding is a self-overcoming. His lack of obedience risks his being commanded. He is referring to what N. said in BGE, 19, that I quoted in the first post:
"A man who WILLS commands something within himself which renders obedience, or which he believes renders obedience."

Elsewhere too, N. says,

"He who cannot obey himself will be commanded. That is the nature of living creatures." [TSZ]

[Aside: JW, 370 is a passage on how he differentiates two kinds of romanticism.]


@Eyes, Maybe. But why does that happen?
Sure, to the weak eye, every thing appears homogenous, and all quoting N. must be weaklings. And then some.
I offer an axiom: Wherever passionate seekers of knowledge exist, Nietzsche will inevitably be quoted.
And wherever a revelery in knowledge exists, Nietzsche need not even be quoted and will have been quoted.

Eos has dawned... the forest looks well-lit.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:09 pm

Lyssa wrote:
By Will to Power, N. then, does not mean Power as something like an object or idea(l) or some thing that can be quite as easily have been anything else, no; for him, everything that is, wants to become master over everything else, a self-assertion, it wills its self over everything, its will wills itself, an affirmative self-assertion;
I don't care what pretty prose one buries this in.
There is no Will to do anything in inanimate things.

It is life that confers upon an emergent unity any desire, any pathos.

Life begins as a resistance to entropy. It's main care is to self-reserve.
It feels this as need.

Life at its basest has no concept of self-overcoming, as it does not even have a concept of self. It's senses are outwardly focused and only senses otherness.
It's assessment of otherness is also basic, and based on binary logic: good/no good or edible inedible. Later this develoeps into threat/no threat.

the power relationship mentioned are not intentional, as they have no intent. They are part of nature: path of least resistance implies a testing of resistance or an interaction where one gives way and the other pushes through.
none of this is willed....a mass of air does not will itself towards a vacuum.
Will is how this very natural relationship develops the capacity to direct itself or to even choose a direction towards more resistance.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:49 pm

To repeat; to N., will-to-power is NOT a will to something, anything... wiling is willing itself. Its an asserting of itself. In the first post, N. clearly says by willing and wtp, he means an ""away from" and "towards which"" network acting out. He reiterates this in WTP, 655 also:

"The drive to approach - and the drive to thrust something back are the bond, in both the inorganic and the organic world. The entire distinction [bet. organic and inorganic] is a prejudice. The will to power in every combination of forces, - defending itself against the stronger, - lunging at the weaker, is more correct. Processes as "entities"."

The inorganic is comprised of "forces in struggle" - (KSA XI- 36(22)), (KSA XI- 34(247) / 36(22)).

Even from a book that is very critical! of N.'s concept of the ER, Robin Small writes,

"Here, I think that the answer lies in another concept which provides Nietzsche with reasons for supposing that constant change belongs to the 'essence' of force. Nietzsche holds that the concept of force needs to be 'completed' by attributing to it an 'inner' aspect usually described as the will to power. Setting aside, for the time being, questions about this concept of power, one might ask whether such an inner will amounts to much the same as 'an intentionality present with the essence of force'. It seems to me that it does NOT. The will to power is a drive, Not an intention. This means that the object towards which it is directed need not be an object of consciousness. ...the drive itself, in these cases, need not be identified with the conscious intention. Nietzsche emphasizes again and again what he sees as the superficial and accidental nature of consciousness. It appears only as the end-product of more fundamental processes within the self. The impulses and drives that constitute this underlying reality are he believes, all forms of the will to power, a constant striving which may express itself in some form of consciousness only on rare occasions. And it is this that Nietzsche holds to be present within the essence of force. ...The will to power can never stand still." [Nietzsche in Context, p.106, 107]

"Popular morality also separates strength from the expressions of strength as if there were behind the strong an indifferent substratum that is free to express strength—or not to." [GM 3.13]

Hence Heid. understands willing is willing itself to power, a self-assertion. The doer and the deed, the strong(willing) and his strength(power) are not separate.

And as regards to his using pretty words, that is just a prejudice; as if, the fisherman using an ornate rod full of colours and playful ribbons is not/cannot be just as serious about catching fish...

I can understand how the Apollonian view sees the inorganic world in terms of resisting entropy, self-preservation and therefore consciousness will take priority, while the Dionysian, sees the total character as an affirmative, joyous [aggressive] self-assertion. I understand this to be an eternal war and dynamic. That is fine, but no where! does N. posit the WTP like some Spinozaic God-consciousness or substance. The latter false conflation appears to be a deliberate leftist reading by Deleuze, etc.

I'll stop here.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:05 pm

Lyssa wrote:
To repeat; to N., will-to-power is NOT a will to something, anything... wiling is willing itself. Its an asserting of itself. In the first post, N. clearly says by willing and wtp, he means an ""away from" and "towards which"" network acting out. He reiterates this in WTP, 655 also:

"The drive to approach - and the drive to thrust something back are the bond, in both the inorganic and the organic world. The entire distinction [bet. organic and inorganic] is a prejudice. The will to power in every combination of forces, - defending itself against the stronger, - lunging at the weaker, is more correct. Processes as "entities"."
Then calling it Will to...Power is, at the very least misleading.

The Bible and many holy books also necessitate this constant reinterpretation of text. In the ambiguity all men can find what they are looking for.
Did he intentionally emulate the biblical method or was he using the Delphic one, which predates the Biblical text?
Nostradamus also used this trick.

Lyssa wrote:
The inorganic is comprised of "forces in struggle" - (KSA XI- 36(22)), (KSA XI- 34(247) / 36(22)).
To use words that imply organic needs is also misleading.
inorganic phenomena does not struggle for anything...it simply flows along the paths-of-least-resistance.....the "least" determined by the aggregate energies.
The universe does not struggle towards entropy...it simply flows towards it with ease. in fact the closer to it it gets the more easier it gets...this is why the expansion of the percpetible universe is accelerating. As ordering decreases then disordering flows more freely, like a rock being worn down by a stream.
Lyssa wrote:

Even from a book that is very critical! of N.'s concept of the ER, Robin Small writes,

"Here, I think that the answer lies in another concept which provides Nietzsche with reasons for supposing that constant change belongs to the 'essence' of force. Nietzsche holds that the concept of force needs to be 'completed' by attributing to it an 'inner' aspect usually described as the will to power. Setting aside, for the time being, questions about this concept of power, one might ask whether such an inner will amounts to much the same as 'an intentionality present with the essence of force'. It seems to me that it does NOT. The will to power is a drive, Not an intention. This means that the object towards which it is directed need not be an object of consciousness. ...the drive itself, in these cases, need not be identified with the conscious intention. Nietzsche emphasizes again and again what he sees as the superficial and accidental nature of consciousness. It appears only as the end-product of more fundamental processes within the self. The impulses and drives that constitute this underlying reality are he believes, all forms of the will to power, a constant striving which may express itself in some form of consciousness only on rare occasions. And it is this that Nietzsche holds to be present within the essence of force. ...The will to power can never stand still." [Nietzsche in Context, p.106, 107]
Calling something a drive or a commanding, when referring to inorganic processes is a form of anthropomorphizing.
There is no driving force, there is only (inter)acting the force being the point where two or more divergent flows come into contact with each other, either in opposition or off-kilt or in harmony.
Force is what is produced through this (inter)action and it tends to harmonize with the most stronger flow.This is why everything is tending towards uniformity...near absolute void.

Lyssa wrote:
Hence Heid. understands willing is willing itself to power, a self-assertion. The doer and the deed, the strong(willing) and his strength(power) are not separate.
Then will only applies to life.
Only a living organism wills and it wills what is most absent in itself....in this case power can be used as a metaphor....or life....or God....or order.
It is because there is no absolute, that it is absent, that it can be defined and described in any way imaginable.

Lyssa wrote:
And as regards to his using pretty words, that is just a prejudice; as if, the fisherman using an ornate rod full of colours and playful ribbons is not/cannot be just as serious about catching fish...
Does not he, Nietzsche, admit that he is talking "over his reader's head"?
Does he not admit that he purposefully uses ambiguity and prose to confuse the average reader and that his kind, or the kind he is addressing himself to, are the ones who will do harm to him?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:00 am

A lot of fancy talk doesn't make the main point right, Satyr. All it does is confuse people. But it looks pretty, nevertheless.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:23 am

"The universe does not struggle towards entropy...it simply flows towards it with ease. in fact the closer to it it gets the more easier it gets...this is why the expansion of the percpetible universe is accelerating. As ordering decreases then disordering flows more freely, like a rock being worn down by a stream."

You act like everything is flowing towards one thing: disorder. But if you look at our history, it has basically been a process of going back and forth between order and disorder. In fact, what you have basically been offering us is a new order: satyr's order. This would be the order after reordering the disorder that happened to be your life. You are the only rock being worn down by a stream
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:31 am

The thing is, Satyr, time isn't moving towards some ultimate end: it's just moving. You accuse me of being christian like; yet you're the one predicting an apocalypse. You're the one that hates humanity so much, have decided that its so much worse than it's ever been that it deserves to die.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:46 am

That said, what you are doing is impressive, my friend.

I can see the development
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14595
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:27 am

Who, imbecile, ever said it is moving towards an "ultimate end"?

Do you have a clue about what I am saying?

Coward, how many times have I said that object/objectives, of which the absolute disorder and absolute order are two, are nothing more than human constructs projected towards the unknown?

How many fuckin' times have I said it?
Still, you have no clue.

How many times have I explained that Fluidity is a unidirectional experience of Flux and that entropy is both increasing and decreasing simultaneously, but that we can only experience it decreasing?

How many fuckin' times have I said it?

Ten?...Twenty?.....no matter how many items I say it idiots, like you, still don't get it.
They only see what they want to see; they only understand as much as their genetics allows them to understand.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Study Guide: Will to Power

Back to top Go down
 
Study Guide: Will to Power
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Spirit Guide vs Power animal vs Animal Totem vs Spirit Animal
» My Power Animal
» The Hyena power animal
» Bible Study: The Wait Between the Dream/Vision/Impartation and the Interpretation & Application
» How About an Idiot's Guide to 9184?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: