Sauwelios
Is the will or it’s constituent parts within the context of, or fundamentally in the subjective observer?
Or is the will or it’s constituent parts external to that?
if not = will to truth.
_
Well, even if the subjective observer experiences it as internal to himself, the fact that he experiences it means that it’s really external to him, of course. But the fact that all that we know is experiences, and not objects of experience, means that we do not know of any subject of experience, either. Part of every experience is the notion of objects and a subject… This is why I said that the belief that the will is a representation makes one a kind of solipsist. If you believe that only the subject exists, that everything that is experienced is merely the subject’s representation, then you’re a solipsist (“all there is is a self”); if you believe that even the subject is a representation, you’re a solosomniist (“all there is is a dream”). The latter is the most consistent. But the dream apparently needs the images of objects and a subject. The need to pose such images is what Nietzsche called “the (primordial) will”. As Picht puts it:
[size=95]“[W]ithout appearance, the eternal flux has no existence. It must produce appearance out of itself.” (Picht, Nietzsche, “The imaginary counterworld of life”.)[/size]
I don’t understand what this means.
I may now understand what you meant. Perhaps you were thinking of this:
[size=95]“One could, with some liberality of expression, call Jesus a ‘free spirit’–he makes nothing of everything steadfast: the word kills, what is steadfast kills. The concept, the experience ‘life’, as he alone knows it, with him goes against any kind of word, formula, law, faith, dogma. He only speaks of the inmost: ‘life’ or ‘truth’ or ‘light’ is his word for the inmost,–all the rest, all of reality, all of nature, language itself, for him has only the value of a sign, a simile.–” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 32.)[/size]
I think that, in section 853 of The Will to Power, neither “‘truth’” nor “truth”–that is, neither “truth” within nor “truth” without quotation marks–refers to the steadfast. I think that, within quotation marks, it refers to Jesus’ “truth” (“life”, “light”), whereas without quotation marks, it refers to that plus the fact that that must pose steadfast things.
The inmost being the love of love, the highest eros - in the still infantile phase of man that Jesus represents.
Let us never compare Jesus to the Greeks in any way - the Christian tale was of a post-Socratic, no longer Homeric but cosmopolite Greece the expression, not in any way comparable in spiritual health and wealth to the people of Athens and the related city states that formed the nexus of our history; that was a case where the collective was greater than the individual, that precious state, possible precisely because there were so many great individuals.
I do strongly identify truth with the ‘innermost’ of the sage of eros - the existence in happy knowledge of itself - but I value this happy self knowledge higher as the superhuman value of Vesta in Rome, the innermost heart of the empire, a flame containing the innermost heart of ‘good Romans’; those who valued themselves whole as Roman. (This excludes the ‘likes’ (broadly speaking) of Caesar, whose innermost is realistically not a possible discussion for moderns).
If you are wondering what the hell I am blathering about, let me just say that I find truth to be a subject that can almost not be expressed directly, at least not truthfully. It is almost an error that the word exists, denoting an object or entity of sorts, whereas it is always first an evaluation based on a perspective, this includes the case of Jesus innermost merriment.
I think Jesus’ life is an example of escaping the indiscriminating flux of the will to power as such, represented by Roman magistrate, and Hebrew priests and lenders, by becoming the embodiment of that flux; the truth is probably that Jesus was trying to save himself, trying to become ‘something’ in what he perceived as nothingness (in terms of value). In any case, I would agree that the truth without quotation marks has to mean the combination you propose; basically ‘everything’, including all the contradictions and struggles enclosed in that term. The monster-hood of the will to power, at the same time as the constantly attained existential victories of beings; the spirit-consuming storm and the prevailing spirits causing the storm; who is the final cause of the storm? The storm will wreak havoc regardless of who stands at its center; in this light we can read all apocalyptic visions in the New Testament; all too well did the early subconscious of the Christian cult realize the implication of its absolute selfishness; of taking “truth” to mean the perfection of their moral self-valuing; this is a recipe for a spiritual war without end; or rather, with only the end of exhaustion. This end is asked by Nietzsche, who cut off the head from the spent body. What had been reached, the Enlightenment, also Newton, many things, may be called ‘the Christ-consciousness’ - we must now cut up his body and feast, because tomorrow is another day. I hope you catch my drift; I have definitely drifted very deep into metaphor rely greatly on you reading between the lines - it is true that the most powerful truths easily betray the one who speaks them.
very interesting fc ^^
Sauwelios
I don’t see how an experience can be external to that which is experiencing it? I can understand that information is external, that’s a simple fact. What i see are multifarious external informations entering the sphere of the subjective experiencer where it is experienced. This ‘sphere’ has an experiential range where it’s influence degrades in tune with it’s ‘intimacy with the conceptual object’. The brain however has a fundamental survival mechanism, which in extreme events overrides the subjects will.
I can then make the informed assumption, that the ‘subconscious will’ - let us call it, equally degrades and has a range relative and respective to that of the subjects experiential range.
[also = not a solipsist or solosomniist]
= Where the conscious subjective will takes precedence over the subconscious will.
That is where free will occurs, but it is not total, and un-free will is equally as powerful, though both can be tuned and calibrated, due to the variations of range. Being master of this = will to power, even if that’s not what Nietzsche thought it was imho.
_
What is more real than the ‘ego’?
Reality.
The OP is merely asking what benefits or dangers are involved in the prospect of everyone being an egotist. Nature has spent millions of years proving that the greater mass of life is not egotistic, even quite slavish.
The relatively few who aspire to be gods among men do so for a very specific reason, an error in judgement. They become famous merely because they stand out as being unusual and more than a little dangerous. Value Ontology seems to infer that all people should aspire to be gods, all people should attempt to be dangerous.
What happens when literally all people are capitalistic, egocentric, scheming serpents?
The Nietzschian idea was that an Ubermensch, superman would eventually rise from the competitive filth due the aberrant annihilation of the others. The “Will to Power” mindset flows from the notion that if you kill off all of the weak, the only thing left will be the strong. That makes sense … to simple minds.
So what are you left with after a relatively greatest murderer of men has arisen to the top of the dog-pile, besides a whole lot of dead dogs?
From there the notion is that he, being “stronger” (more capable of killing more others), will mate with more females and produce more of himself, more competition for himself (Caesar and his offspring). An then from their competition with each other, another dog-pile, a even greater killer of men will arise.
And the pattern continues so as to eventually evolve the greatest of men, a god of death, capable and willing to kill ALL life at a moments notice upon any hint of being offended - an emotional, extremely dangerous, child - the result of life long insecurity fighting back by any means that seems to work.
And that is the inherent pattern being portrayed even by those who just barely begin such a journey. Just as the species evolves, every single mind does as well. The growth and pathology of the race is that of a blind race through the struggles of life, from birth to death. So as to merely produce the greatest of murderers? Emmm … why? Space alien attacks?
Where and when in such blind egocentric malignancy is the effort to stop the murdering and terrorism?
What was the real purpose of life that was being ignored?
Please stop lying about vo.
Your ideas are entirely unrelated to it.
A plant has no ego. Yet it self values. I know you know this. Or I hope I can be certain.
Actually what am I saying… you ve actually misrepresented it since 2011.
I am sick in my excessive trust.
Carry on
Egocentric Bullshit. I gave you years to clarify your intentions while defending your options. You merely fell into the most common of all traps; ego-sensitivity, hyper-paranoia as suspicions reign over your soul. You still cannot come up with an excuse for your behavior BECAUSE:
Your VO endeavor has merely emphasized your ego reactiveness. You initially felt that response as a cathartic good thing, freeing you from your prior ego-oppression. Your symptoms were more than obvious. So I, from the very beginning, have kept asking you to clarify exactly what your intentions are. Are you going to become the extreme bad thing, the extreme good thing, or perhaps neither? You could not find stability and thus chose somewhere between hatred and senseless futility, not far from where you began.
So by the behavior reflected by FC, MM, and Sauwelios, I would have to say that VO leads merely to mindless egocentric anger and a lust to become a god. And that is exactly what has been reflected by the Nietzschian endeavors throughout history. That is exactly what it is for; blind destruction.
I once gave you 30 days … from which nothing came. Now you have the rest of your life, from which nothing is expected.
Prove me wrong.
Parts of it are addressed to you, and parts of it are me going off/on tangents.
And reality is what James, if not the whole of existence that is inter/activity, each organizing into more efficient structures ‘selves’, the process of which involves self-destruction and shedding and starting again and again? My understanding of the ego is not based on a paltry concept like the conatus and self-preservation, but self-excess owing to the sheer entropic energy from within bursting out and trying to undo every organization to stimulate more and more efficient re-organizing.
Such ‘egoism’ is the very ‘fabric’ of reality…
That conatus can only lead to a hedonistic libertarianism or stirnerite atomic individuality has already been pointed out. But there is a capitalism of self-ishness that is not restricted to this kind of free-for-all slavish selfish-ness. I’ve quoted Satyr enough on the dangers of self-referential solipsism;
but positing a god, any god, even renaming it as “logical necessity” as you do, is more unreal than the point at which you take critique. You cannot compress the universe into a systemic regularity where there is none, just because you fear what may happen. Constricting life to probabilistic boundaries and rationalistic predictabilities is as worse cocooning as the stirnerite anarchic kind, a self-dwarfing me-for-myself that terminates the core of identity with itself or its immediate environment and not the sum of the whole organic past. Is it any less of a solipsism if rational verification in(tro)spects with instruments that are part of that in(tro)spection? In any case, Stirner’s/Spinoza’s atomic mere self-preservatory ego is not the only kind of ego.
In the absence of any absolutes or “sky-hook” sources, Value Ethics need to be tied to naturalistic goals, and ideals that are organic expressions of an ecology’s collective vitalities, a re-sourceful spring of values, act as the Terminus<>the Vanguard. The end is the lead bearing the trope of an edge.
Families left to many private household gods/ancestral worship and revolving around one public god-hero/genius of the land, footholds concretized and consecrated by decisive history/terminal piety was how there was an orderly freedom; but with the current breakdown of the very significance of marriage, all now becoming a meaningless orgy… such a foot-hold from which ideals as organic expressions of local ‘egos’ and ecologies leap out of, is disappearing.
UN like global Sanctions have replaced Sanctities.
Sanctuaries or places that hold sanctity, ‘inviolable’, ‘holy’, ‘pure’, a ‘cosmos’ in the chaos can be terminal-refuge only depending on how Elastically it references reality, being open to it without resigning to it. In ancient cosmic diagrams, entropic entities - errors, untruth, disorder, were personalized and had to be “fed”, offered a sacrifice just as any other; these were not eliminated away from the diagram. They were given their ‘quarters’. The Quinto quarto has its real history in this and not where the wiki stops. The fifth received whatever fell outside the well-ordered four ‘when the cosmic man was sacrificed’; +1 kept the elasticity.
As N. points out, there are only superior/inferior degrees of objectivity, and the quality of any ideal has to be tied to its elastic strength - openness of Becoming and the recuperative power is embedded in the word Salut that means both salutation/welcoming as well as salvation respectiely. Measuring this elasticity is the slippery edge differentiating N. and the postmodern Derrida:
According to Derrida, the Immune system keeps the body rigid and sheltered from within, such a petrifaction is the real disease and so the Virus that destabilizes and sets motion is an Ally…
vs.,
“The community’s overall strength has to be great enough” is where a real self-valuing has a benefit. Like the skull or a water-bed able to take the impact.
In the human world, by “self-valuing”, I understand it to mean the same as what Sartre said or what real Buddhism strived to teach on being “mind-full”. People value things “unconsciously”.
When you are involved in any purchase, any activity, any task unconsciously, you are being-valued through the other’s valuation. This is a diminishing of self-freedom.
Making conscious choices and acting consciously is determining things on one’s terms than being determined:
Error occurs when you take this concept of self-valuing from the human world [where a free man puts no one above him; he is the determiner, not the determined] to the real world [where a free man binds is determined by the necessities of nature].
Further, as Sartre himself realized, such “self-valuing” inevitably Has to lead to a secular humanism, when you assume every ordering is a positive progress:
So while VOt can be seen as a wall against capitalistic or any ideologial proliferation from the pov. of the consumers by wanting them to become more aware of their selves beyond the limited conception of the ‘social’ self determined by its times and selfish-self-interest, it inevitably will lead to an anaemic secular humanism, the black hole of self-valuing, as long as mere self-preservation is what it stands on. Because the more and more particular you get, it will lead to the very condition of postmodernism it claimed to be against - it would be a self-tripping. A proper Value Ethics would generate family and other kindred cohesions, but with mere self-preservation, there’s nothing stopping this cohesion from continuing on into the value-vacuum ocean of ‘humanity’. Its why I say, not intactness, but elasticity that can show the digestive capacity, of where to stop and form a terminus to regulate the self-ish egoistic ideals.
A young creeper is given a pole to stabilize itself; in the postmodern turmoil where everything is fragmenting, it makes sense to call for an internal armour to steady yourself around. Who will carry forward a culture or whatever is left of it, or birth a new one, if the civilization mass is not steady, if the ground is all wobbly? But the conatus will prove useless.
Slavish altruism or obedience is their egotism as well; the weak preserve themselves by association with or absorption into the strong.
The danger is not with the principle but the people - not all are capable of valuing themselves beyond their immediate self-gratification, and the export of this ideology would accelerate the current culture of narcissism.
Your hedonistic Xt. not withstanding, as if life itself was not exploitation, the retention of violence is as sick and produces illness as much as its mindless unleashing.
Thymotic release is health-renewing.
But the other way too, the more one affirms oneself, the less explicit violence would be. More sophisticated forms of cunning would give birth to more sophisticated consciousness to feel more, experience life more and more acutely… and the form of politics and art would change resulting a shift in evolutionary standards. What these people consider evolutionary progress is another matter, of which I have no idea.
No such thing was said by N. That’s more Redbeard.
N. called the ER - a form of European Buddhism, an applied ideological pressure that would select the strong natures and cause the weak to deselect themselves. The Overman is abt. overcoming nausea of the temporality of existence… which would include the endurance of parasites as a sign of that affirmative overcoming.
N. said the first creatures to emerge from the nihiistic chaos would be the “barbarians” who would “clear the way” for higher beings. All higher creation cannot occur without destruction first. A good katharsis.
The WTP is a perspective of a neutral plain, a flat-ground that exposes those who exert power as brute force, separating from those who exert it as selective pressure so much so that nobility becomes a quest for self-mastery and a joy in how much one can do without the concern for power as direct force to rule others, but rather pulls others to Want to value on its terms…
Life has no innate telos, or purpose ‘behind’ it. Science is the open eye, Art is the light that illumines. Seeing was a tactility, a grasping among the Greeks.
But they misinterpreted seeing for a logical principle, either that or the blindness of the cave. They did not realize or were not aware of the grey areas, whereby they could take respite, which tradition has brought up with Neo Platonism onward, tp respite, rescue IT,
as the benedictines have done, illuminating this need,
not fo want of any material gain, lest their soul be
lost. This paradise was not lost with N, a minister has instilled him the need for such a faith, his nihilization was a warning, a jest, if only, some would, could, listen, !!!. It is an anthi thesis he was advocating, to balance that, which has started to erode, , the Anti Christ, was such a weight put on the opposite of a loaded scale.
The logical principle itself needs hair-splitting further into the Grand logic kind of simplicity, a ‘magic’ of effortlessness, vs. the logical simplification into static codes over metaphors.
Later.
Yes and i hate to be dimunitive, but as Gertude Stein could have said, a tree is a tree is a tree, which she did not.
The fact; remains, that there is a need, for a tree to remain a tree irrespective of what it appears to be by way of want.
If it were not for the very simplest recognitions by way of identification, there could not be said that a tree ever even existed. Before we can distinguish a tree from a bush, there needs to be a way of recognizing, identifying, and realizing, what in fact, it
is. Before we can desribe a tree as it’s existntial priority, we do have to identify it in terms of what it is, it’s ‘identity’. That is primordial. Than after a while, say a thousand or more years, we can exlude it’s existant from its existence, and classify it according to other schema. But the original signification sticks, never the less.
Hmmm…
Lys, I can see that you are one of those women who tempt me into turning my basement, your storage/bedroom, into a class BDSM dungeon until you learn of the brighter light. You have spent too much time with masters who are the less than Lordly.
You have proposed a false dichotomy of;
A) Foolishly rigid and paranoid of change
B) Wisely diverse and living only for the moment.
C) Non-existent because I never grasped the brighter light of neither A nor B
Such is the world of Nietzsche level philosophy. But such is not the reality of the world nor the mind.
Reality is indeed a constant, relentless exchange of influence and affect, “Affectance”. The only permanence is the ideal. But who seeks the ideal without imagining that it can be attained? And who lives for very long at all, without seeking an unattainable ideal? The answer to both is “none”.
Life requires relatively consistent goals from instant to instant, else it becomes stagnate and ceases to be life. But what natural creature lives expressly for sake of the evolution/changing of its species? Not a single one. Do individual ants or bees ever, even once, actually consider their colony or species? No. They merely perform their programing, oblivious to its consequences = “Socialism” = only half “alive”.
I don’t want to call Nietzsche an idiot, because that would imply that so many others were also idiots, merely of a different flavor. And it would not be kind to point out why such would be true. So I prefer to do something else, despite the fact that common minds cannot catch up with any more than what they hear from their preachers of naive philosophies.
I prefer to speak of what MUST be true, regardless of whoever said whatever they might have said. Of course, in your world of guise and disguise, such could only be considered “just another opinion”. And that is fine with me, whether true or not. In the end, I am standing and they are not. But of course, you are not at the end, thus you cannot know the truth of what I say. You propose what could be true from your shadowed perspective. You speculate and prefer. You would like to see this or that be true. I, on the other hand, am not moved, and cannot be moved, because I have more than sufficient cause to know what I know without the slightest opportunity for doubt. It really doesn’t matter who questions me, or by what manner they do so. I am the unmoved, only wondering and perhaps wavering upon whom to move.
An “ego” is merely an effort to sustain a false image. If the image is not false, it is not a “ego”, but merely a presentation of self, an uncommon occurance. But who truly “Knows Thyself”? I have yet to meet even one that wasn’t female. Do I need to repeat that?
The female knows that she is an image, with touches of that which is real … deep within. She inherently knows that she is an act, an effort to present herself as something desirable or at least acceptable to her devoted. Nothing else really matters all that much. Males, in general, are not so wise.
Perhaps it is true that VO would inspire more males to wake up to the social role of acting, as the female inherently knows. I have asked the proponents of VO that question. But their “act” appears to be merely one more “I am great and you are shit” type of scenario. Granted among males, when has that not been the scenario? But then again, why do we need an “ontology” (actually remaining merely an ideology) to wake us up to what has been misleading males forever? What really, actually changes in them with VO other than a few insecure males becoming more voicetress?
What is the good in preaching that people, especially males, should “do as thou wilt” while ignoring the wisdom of those so close at hand? Women already do that, always have. Who actually benefits?
Is it really true that all humanoids should become so feminine?
Surely you don’t think that there isn’t going to be a truly masculine on top of that pile … ?
Hmmmmm… 
Good lord! you’ve crowned yourself already… and we didn’t even court for sport yet…
I proposed a synthesis of an imbalanced Apollo and an imbalanced Dionysos…? Let there be light!
No, such is the level of Your misreading, assuming you even read anything of N. Directly which I really doubt given the two statements you attributed to him. Before you wear the crown, you atleast need to know the other and what he really said and why, else you’re just building castles in the air.
Is this how you exhibit your own standards?
VERIFY, CLARIFY.
Go to the source and not base conclusions or opinions from random people (self included) calling themselves Nietzscheans.
There is interactivity that is not simply exchange, but domination and subordination and temporary co-operation and continual shifting centres of power, much like BDSM, good lord!
Yes.
Goals as self-directions to cultivate oneself towards one’s ideal should be mid-way between consistency [enduring habits] and arbitrariness [whimsical experimentation, rhizomatic]:
That’s why the it needs to be made conscious;
We speak of change and evolution in that there are two kinds of discontentment - fem. and masculine;
That is complemented by contentment;
In summa, we could say, there needs to be discontentment in the spirit, with contentment in the soul…
Hence,
Does this sound like an idiot to you?
Clarify, Verify.
Balance:
And you call others Narcissists? What an opposite of the open and curious scientific spirit…
As much as Iambig is a pain, I think I see why for every James assering Absoluteness, there will be an Iambig… like an anentropic adjusting necessity.
That’s interesting in terms of Courtly love as I excerpted abt. it.
The Courtly Lady is but a figment of the Knight’s imagination, and the more closer he approaches, the more distantly unreachable it appears. But when the Knight displaces the Lord, the Lady is his reality.
The Knight and the Noble are one and the same from different perspectives, just as the Lady is both Virgin and Whore.
He is at once, a Lord and a Lover.
Noble and Knight.
He is the Punisher of betrayers as well as the Participant of the secret love.
He is at once a Sear of the heart [cannibal], as well as a Seer of the heart [connoisseur].
Zizek writes about Her who does not really exist, as one who can only be perceived as an Anamorphosis
By seeing the Lady as the reality principle, neatly provides a case for the other side of the Virgin/Whore split. If Romantic Idealism of the Virgin and orthodox Xt. triumphed at one end, Zizek shows how the other side of Marxist-Communist Feminism and the sadomasochism of pornography evolved out of the same logic of courtly tradition:
Beatrix is perishable, impermanent, an illusion, the ideal one wants for it to remain an ideal;
but what is steady and most reliable is self-love, only the desire for desire of the beloved…
There’s the false discrete, atomic ‘ego’ and the real ‘ego’ born of one’s own fire of self-discrimination, of self-reverence, of self-valuing, of self-love as a chain of the organic becoming…
The Self is the footstep of everything, for through it one knows everything…
Man as the hunter, is a drawing closer and closer to his ego,… he is Becoming, while the female is Being’ness’ more im/personal in the ‘assurance’ of sufficiency, cold, so there and reachable, yet distant, prim and Proper, integrity… while man is most personal, voluptuous, apPropriating, integrating.
The very nature of life IS differentiation, is resistance to entropy, is the shape-forming will organizing itself to greater and greater efficiency…
What is continuous is flux… and the paradox of life is such that inherent to that very becoming, is the will to become more, which prompts self-preservation and organization of ‘centres’ for ‘self’-efficiency. The ‘ego’ is as real and a product of the same entropic reality.
The discrete ego as the error is a useful error, and part of life’s own consistent logical drive towards maximal self-efficiency. Life does not Have an imperative to attain; life Is the imperative. - to become/transcend more and more.
It is the Dividing and self-differentiating; there is no-thing to divide ‘It’." That living organisms create borders, thin films of consciousness is a logic inherent to life as it IS, its own evolutionary feature that moves towards greater and greater self-efficiency. The error among humans is when they begin to see themselves as separate from this very feature of life, the self as a discrete “intact” being, but every being is always only a being-in-becoming. The self is always an “elastic” emerging.
Life at large is both border/boundary and center/ego. Like how a court intertwines both the King and the Clown, with crowns that are inversions of the other, and likewise authoritative speech tied to subversive humour. What abyss can be endured directly, needs the safety valve in the absurdity of a humourous clown. Elasticity.
I have quoted this before from N. again, that one never knows oneself unless one first one first invents it. Call that invention Diotima, Sophia, Beatrice, Ariadne; you need the design of a Labyrinth to feel/know who it is that searches to exit…
Misleading? That the true wisdom is in contended self-sedation? One already has what one needs to have?
Is that it?
The apollonian oedipal instinct is to abandon home in the chase of the impossible immortality.
The mother is feared of devouring him and he longs to escape.
What is feared here is Retardation, regression. A question of space, need to explore. Attractive is who seduces with possibilities.
She says, Be more.
Degradation is erotic.
Asking everything of him is her pride, and he is drawn to her need.
The demand to prove and reveal himself, her cruelty, her needy desire, makes her attractive to him. The woman who gives him pain feels real to him.
Courage is demonstration.
The dionysian odyssean instinct is to abandon calypso’s offer of immortality in the nostalgia for return home.
The mother is revered for making him a possibility and he longs to consummate.
What is feared here is Oblivion, abandonment. A question of time, need to be remembered. Attractive is who promises hope.
She says, As you are.
Trust is erotic.
Asking nothing at all from him is her pride, and he is drawn to her excess.
The remand to gloat and revel himself, her vulnerability, her trusting desire, makes her attractive to him. The woman who gives him joy feels true to him.
Boldness is self-love.
Retardation and Oblivion are both a kind of blindness, darkness… the eye of the Apollo is physical, and of Dionysos is inward.
Both desires are coupled with tragic wisdom of their kind.
In Apollo’s world - the trepidation of fleeting individuality gives a shiver. He becomes a wanderer needing to see and experience it all urgently… the voyeur.
He prays to Apollo the Seer, the Healer for the song of visions.
In Dionysos’ world - the nihilism of acute perception of reality gives a paralysis. He becomes a recluse seeking to release all he has seen urgently… the sage.
He prays to Dionysos the Demiurger, the Liberator for the dance of freedom.
A satyr is a bit of both - he chases and hunts as much as he plays the flute alone.
In any case, as N. finally concludes, whether resisting or submissive, man falls in love only with his own desire.
Interesting how in Troubador poetry, the two come together. The lowly knight singing to the unattainable lady of his lord merges into the worship of Marion as (both) Virgin-Mother. The desire for the eternal feminine is still to be in love with one’s desires.
But independence has always been for the “few”…
I dont think that’s how they mean.
Value is the sum of all selectings/nurturings the self is, and not value yourself. Your measure is your past is you.
“Man is the measure.”
It cannot mean value yourself at the ontological level, as N. makes clear,
Nietzscheanism is the opposite of Might is Right.
Its better than your stance which argues that all Are valuable… what is more feminine than such an indiscriminate nihilistic ethos?
I thought the truly masculine like women holding the whip, Good Lord! ; )
You were in need of it. I could hear you asking for it badly.
So you also hear voices?? 
The dichotomy that I suggested was merely about what you had suggested. I was not trying to paraphrase Nietzsche at all. I said that it was on the same LEVEL => too naive.
I am not really interested in what Nietzsche might have said about … well … hardly anything (nor hardly anyone of that era). I can gauge what his worshipers end up preaching to the world … mostly a great deal of selfishness, greed, and nihilation. If he meant something different than that, my sympathies to his memory. But too late now.
Clear enough?
PS. Oh, and it is not “Good Lord”, merely “My Lord” will suffice.
And emmm … no “crowns” involved, merely a tempting thought.
I think any educated person reading you say N. called out for a Might is Right destruction would have also heard you asking for it… badly.
Again, you sound very ignorant and stand as a contradiction to your own principles of Verify and Clarify.
And if your Megalomaniac Narcissism cannot deal with it, your question and critique just stand as all hot air. Your errors whether you care or not! at every turn have been pointed out. That’s enough for me.
What’s clear is you are a Coward and are insincere. And a Shame to the Scientific spirit.
Clear?
Your habits from kneeling to your saviour saying that like a good bride is not my own.
Enjoy the rapture.
But there is little doubt that those representing VO, being the same as those representing Nietzsche, aspire to be große Übermenschen. Give any one of them half a chance and we would have Hitler reincarnated, just less talented.