Nietzschean philosophy + belief?

Nietzschean philosophy + belief?

Will to power; “Kraft (force) and Macht (power).[2] Kraft is primordial strength that may be exercised by anything possessing it, while Macht is, within Nietzsche’s philosophy, closely tied to sublimation and “self-overcoming”, the conscious channelling of Kraft for creative purposes”.

I can perceive a force in the world that drives us, it’s >impression< to me is that on an inner level the force is metaphorically like any force out there in the universe, in that it doesn’t have its own driving force or factor. Anyone from the Beatles, Jesus, Buddha, davinci to Hitler can tap into it, that is, anyone et al can tap into it and whatever their drives are, those things will be amplified.

The imprint i get from Nietzschean philosophy and many philosophers who are into him, is of a driving force in Nietzschean philosophy comparable to theirs in some ways, though naturally we are all individuals so there will be great variance ~ and this is an ‘impression’. My point though, is asking if this is a belief? Will to power evokes an idea of ‘self to more power’, or otherwise why would you need to be thinking that!? If people didn’t have the >belief< ‘to gain greater power’ , which goes much wider in the world and history than Nietzschean philosophy, then the world would have been and would be, a more balanced and pleasant place to exist in.

Mostly though, i think a belief is like a seed in the mind, to wit ones intellectual processes and cycles defer. You will return to the respective ways of thinking as your minds perception follows the returning circle or cycle of thoughts. Is this not a kind of trap or restriction upon the soul and one which has plagued man since the dawn of man?

A belief ~ any belief, is a thought system which governs ones mental patterns in some measure:

‘an unbound freedom is greater than the freedom bound by its even it’s own cycles’

Are you a believer?

Or in contradiction to the above; once we see it, can we take ourselves outside of that ‘image’ [The collection of patterns and cycles in the mind] as if to look upon it i.e. The observer is always subjective to the object. So where the perception is projected onto a thing, it is no longer mastered by that thing. This because by definition of the act of separation included in the action of becoming the subjective observer. However, if the mind is often returned ~ brought into the sphere of said image, then perhaps that is a virtual or partial enslavement? Depends really if you have beliefs doesn’t it?

_

yes it’s an enslavement, we are all slaves to some recurrent pattern, but in this sense, it is just adherence to a process. Total freedom to will, is possible, to gain power, as everyone has to to differentiate the process to begone with, but to de dissociate is fraught with dangers of which only the wisest can venture to overcome.

Orb

Yes and no [nicely put too!]; no, only because to bring the idea of self power to mind is to plant its seed [?] where nature will itself otherwise grow. In other words, perhaps there is a natural path in the sense of being unforced and not of planting seeds, those which themselves grow seeds to which the mind will return.

Please expand?

Good analogy. the will to power is a primal force not unique in the sense that it’s appearing singular quest to overcome the sense of being bound, but such process, of differentiation, is I agree of primal process, of non cognitive, construct, but as this goes on, the differentiation splits the primary intent to the motive of existence itself. Here, the conscious element appears, and it creates the self conscious self, of realizing difference between the context and the perspective within and without he perceives that difference.

De differentiation is like going backwards in time, and the qualitative changes are misconstrued, because the original intent, or seeding, can never be qualified,nor apprehended in a singularity, as was present in a construction. the deconstruction as a philo-psychological construct, here is not differentiated, and this has become the crux of the philosophical dilemma ever since between the Cogito ergo Sum, and the Esse est perceipi. the mix of personal and social attributes, has become mired in an anomaly between the two processes. To go into the regressive, be it a psychological or a philosophical regression, is to subject one’s self to a realm which bean be best described as a descent into hell. Blake. Prometheus, and others have tried it, and remained pretty much intact, however, the problem with any anomalies is, that adherents are often met, in Your terminology, the seeds often beg the capacity to deal with those, to whom nurturing them and growing them become as important, than dealing with fears, of loosing themselves into the very processes into which they are trying to unwind.

Indeed, or in another sense, infinity is boundless and the effect of this boundlessness generates the singular force; ‘to not be limited’. This incurs a contradiction and prime duality where being nothing or empty, divinely balanced and such, is a bounding as in a limit to its limitedness.

Perhaps its not so much that reality is the ‘infinite’ or any thing, concept or idea, but it is something which contains it. This is because just as we cannot state what reality is, reality cannot state what it is, lol. Something which cannot be fathomed [has unfathomable nature], is or will be infinite. Yet such a thing as e.g. infinity doesn’t exist until there is a reality for it to exist in. If we cast a philosophical blank slate, everything else is after the fact, thus we have to ultimately begin before absolutely anything ~ and that is what reality is.

Hence; = the force.

Also = something which isn’t the force [as the force is after/resultant].

Which returns us to ‘will to power’ and my concerns about its pursuit over an alternative ‘natural’ allowing of things to just happen, rather than trying to force ones impression upon the world in some way. Though we all do that if honest lol
Perhaps there is a balance of both abstinence [reality] and force [its result], where we and the world are its artisans of form.

Is the apparent abyss [descent into hell etc] somehow derived from all this, and is it a perceived one or actual?
…is perhaps which side of the coin we gaze upon; the empty, or the force. Is the unforced the Tao, or as i put it the natural [allowed to flow rather than forced].

Besides, two perfect fighters would cancel one another’s actions out, so you cant really have winners. {so where can the force go/achieve ultimately}

_