Cause and its effect, the making of symbols

[Uniqor]

Dunamis hi.

Thanks for the reading lesson in Nietzsche.

What’s the point of saying that?

The problem is that I take this particular trope of Nietzsche’s to be a very powerful one,

Not to me, no. I’m not influenced by Nietzsche’s poetic style and affectionate definitions.

and his ubermensch as inherently flawed and self-contradictory.

I never said for sure that this idea is perfect - again, I’m just here to try to gain more assurance by critically exploiting it with you lot - I though I did took your advise and was careful with my tone - but obviously something inside you is yet again uneccessarily involked, disappointing.

unlike you, I do not worship at the Nietzsche alter.

I don’t worship nobody.

and not on how well they support and are consistent his “doctrine” as you understand it.

You can’t stop this ad hominem thing… what make you so sure that I lack the basic awareness of objective understanding? Again, I don’t worship Nietzsche nor do I take him as a whole.

You are famous for ignoring passages of his when they do not fit within your understanding.

Here we go again… I bring my confusion about things here to ILP, I’ve posted several threads asking for opinions about some Nietzsche that I don’t quite grasp… hang on, why should I defend myself when really there is nothing to defend?..

Open a thread on the “ubermensch” if you would like.

Maybe later. Soz for taking your focus away a bit there, I’m out.

[Impenitent]

@Dunamis

Imp.,

no, not because he says so, but because they are at base, nothing…

No. At base, under this analogy, they are a physiology. The “content” of their reference is irrelevant. alas, that content of the reference is the only thing There is no exterior position from which to gauge the value of that content. each perspective is that exterior position…

no, again, the diamond is nietzsche’s allusion to the ubermensch

No. the Ubermensche is nothing if not for the values that are presupposed to give him valuation. The diamond and the ubermensch is nothing apart from valuation. There is no inherent value to either. A diamond is just another rock. An ubermensche just another mensch, until put into relations. so the herd determines the ubermensch? no…

no, nihilism itself is an absolute, the beginning… in the presence of power, specifically ~nihilism, one creates against the nihilistic background… the whom implicit in the power is not implicit because the power must be directed to have meaning…

I can’t really read through your anacoluthic method of expression.
where does your confusion lie?
Are the elisions meant to be instructive?
there was no omission- the tilde represents the logical denial of nihilism
What is “the beginning”?
that from which one builds
What is the “background of Nihilism”?
the blank canvas upon which the artist creates
All contests of power are conducted within material limits, - not dreamed up in abstraction, but performed in the world - and so the victory of one is not only an expression of individual capacities, but those capacities are in reference to their context.
and the materiality of the power of god exists where?
The power may have to be directed, but the “whom” is implied by the agent who does the directing, i.e. he who is served.
and the director of the power and the beneficiary of the power are not necessarily the same… nor is the interpreter or interpretation of said act…

but it is completely arbitrary… there is at base, nothing. what physiologies?

Are you not following Nietzsche’s metaphor that I had hoped we were exploring here? The conceptual physiologies are those referred to by Nietzsche. yes

what interpretation of physiology shall one posit?

That’s the point. There can be no interpretation of a physiology under this form, and for that reason no valuation of it as well.
but there can be… it just isn’t permenant
One can only let the physiologies of concepts fight it out on the terrain of the world. As Tina Turner said, “Two men enter, one man leaves”. The only interpretation/valuation is in the persistence of the man/concept/organism.
exactly

the things described are ultimately fleeting, the descriptions are the colors on the pallette…

Not under this particular metaphor of Nietzsche’s. Concepts are like organisms, not random jots on a blank canvas.
organisms are random jots on a blank canvas
They have genetic histories which speak to the “truth” of their persistence in the power of their persistence. The body plans of their physiologies have continuity in time, specific histories that attest to their power.
history is not future nor is history persistence… the “body plans” are nothing but human interpretations of that which can not be known… they are not parts of god

your assumption that only particular physiologies can exist in the void is based on?

What void?
the nihilism that underlies all
All physiologies exist within material parameters. Fish live, breath and compete within the sea. Birds live, breath and compete on the earth and in the air. The “truth” of any particular “physiology” is only its sufficiency within its environment. The “evolution” of physiologies attest not to persistence amid “the void”, - “the void” an entirely postulated “concept” with its own ontogenic history, a concept not arisen amid “the void”, i.e. not transcendent, but within the material contexts of its own development – but attest to persistence amid the material conditions in which they have thrived. You are missing the physicality of the idea, which specifically Nietzsche is turning to here by equating the concept to an organism.
and you are missing the fact that human interpretation of physicality and persistence of a constantly changing and growing thing, the identity of which changes at each moment, is not persistent nor “truth”…

the future resembling the past?

What do you imagine the ontogeny of organisms and concepts means?
[b]the change from birth to death… not fixed at any given point, but constantly in flux… to claim that it will be x in the future is an error in the belief of cause and effect…

"…Those exceptional thinkers, like the Eleatics, who nevertheless posited and clung to the opposites of the natural errors, believed that it was possible to live in accordance with these opposites: they invented the sage as the man who was unchangeable and impersonal, the man of the universality of intuition who was One and All at the same time, with a special capacity for his inverted knowledge; they had the faith that their knowledge was also the principle of life. But in order to claim all of this, they had to deceive themselves about their own state: they had to attribute to themselves, fictitiously, impersonality and changeless duration; they had to misapprehend the nature of the knower; they had to deny the role of the impulses in knowledge; and quite generally they had to conceive of reason as a completely free and spontaneous activity; they shut their eyes to the fact that they, too, had arrived at their propositions through opposition to common sense, or owing to a desire for tranquility, for sole possession, or for dominion…" GS 110

[/b]

the “presence and persistence” is of the power not the background…

But the persistence of organisms (and concepts) is done is context of the background, a background that cannot be considered neutral or blank under this metaphor. no, the persistence of the organism is the persistence of the organism. the background is nothing

the ubermensch makes his mark regardless of the untermensch…

He makes his mark only if he has the power to make his mark. If he has no such power, he is nothing. The power to mark is the only power. exactly, regardless of the untermensch

the ubermensch exists necessarily outside that circle…

Because values are entirely relative to the physiologies of concepts, to be inside or outside the circle is also meaningless beyond that particular physiology. This is another rhetorical trope, just like the diamond. If the conceptual is only the competition of the physiologies of organisms, the value of being inside or outside the circle, being a diamond, being “over” is meaningless except through the manifestation of power.

Dunamis

again, the meaning is relative…

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@Uniqor

not decadence… pity… ask Zarathustra

I’m aware of the “going down” lines at the begining part of volume 1, but I regard pity as a sign of being too-human and would evetually lead to decadence. And I regard decadence as the only way for one to go down the line, from the loss of ubermensch power to the loss of untermensch power and eventually to the no power - the lastman defined by zarathustra - the ultimate bottom consequence of decadence. no, read zarathustra… going down refers to zarathustra’s leaving his mountain home to mingle with the herd… pity is his final sin, pity for the herd is what zarathustra overcomes…

not exactly create but believe…

What are you saying - that Wagner created nothing at all? The will to creat… that sounds rather unfamiliar to my nietzschean ears, could you give some quote that’s strictly related to defining ubermensch? Because I thought that umbermensch signifies mainly the overcoming of all-too-humaness and nihilism.

the untermensch believes while not creating… the ubermensch is the creator… no, wagner was no ubermensch…

-Imp

[Dunamis]

Imp.,

alas, that content of the reference is the only thing

Who says it’s the only thing? Under this metaphor the content is irrelevant, since only the morphology in competition is on point.

each perspective is that exterior position…”

But each “exterior” cannot appeal to a greater truth. It is forced to be in competition with other truths, and only the exercise of power can resolve the “debate”? Hence the “content” cannot be declared “empty”, but only impotent in consequence. If the concept/organism survives it proves potent.

so the herd determines the ubermensch? no…

This is exactly the thing that maddened Nietzsche, that his noblese idea of the overman would be potentially subject to the herd. The fact that Spinoza grasped, and that Nietzsche ultimately could not grasp is that the very vitality of the herd, the strength of its concepts, if the universe is going to be simply a contest of physiologies with no transcendent values, if it kills off the overman, is “right”, is “superior”, is “uber”, despite all the machinations Nietzsche uses to undermine it. It is pure contest. When power is knowing, then whoever wins, knows.

where does your confusion lie?

I did not understand (…), they seemed to separate incomplete thoughts.

that from which one builds

Under the metaphor of the organism, there is no “that from which one builds”, there is only the preservation of the form as the highest value.

the blank canvas upon which the artist creates

There is no blank canvas on which one creates in this metaphor, rather the image of the world is determined by the physiology and ontogeny of organisms and concepts.

and the materiality of the power of god exists where?

In the material effects of those that believe in him. If concepts are to be given a physiology and an ontogeny, then they are given a material body of effects and are not judged by the “content” of their belief. The question is not of the materiality of the power of god, it is the materiality of the power of the “concept” of god.

but there can be… it just isn’t permenant

But the nature of this impermanency, under this metaphor is not that of Nihilistic vanishing, but in the ontogeny and physiology of concepts, which record a history, and also the “imprint”, if you would allow, of the world within which they compete.

The only interpretation/valuation is in the persistence of the man/concept/organism.
exactly

So the persistence of the herd and its “concepts” provides the interpretation/valuation of those concepts. They are not inherently weak, until proven so by contest.

organisms are random jots on a blank canvas

Not under this metaphor.

history is not future nor is history persistence… the “body plans” are nothing but human interpretations of that which can not be known… they are not parts of god

You completely ignore the operative elements in this metaphor, which focus both on the materiality of concepts and their ontogeny. All that you dismiss is present in his thinking here.

What void?
the nihilism that underlies all

Not present in this metaphor, in fact the opposite is posited, a ground that is understood through the physiology and ontogeny of concepts.

and you are missing the fact that human interpretation of physicality and persistence of a constantly changing and growing thing, the identity of which changes at each moment, is not persistent nor “truth”…

No it is in competition. It is a perpetual expression of power, which does not mean that it is in reference to “nothing”, but rather that it is conducted within material circumstance, within material limits, and therefore expresses those limits. “Human interpretation” itself as a physiology and ontogeny.

the change from birth to death… not fixed at any given point, but constantly in flux… to claim that it will be x in the future is an error in the belief of cause and effect…

This of course has nothing to do with ontogeny. The persistence of form through the course and development of an individual is central the word. Genetic.

no, the persistence of the organism is the persistence of the organism. the background is nothing

This has nothing to do with the metaphor of an organism. A fish cannot live on land. If you found a fish on land you would have no understanding of the ontogeny and physiology of the fish until you realized that it developed in the water. The “background” of the water is expressed in the fish. Just as the background of a concept is expressed it is physiology and ontogeny.

exactly, regardless of the untermensch

Unless the untermensch prevents him through the exercise of his or their power. There is no such thing as a “fair fight”.

Dunamis

[Impenitent]

@Dunamis

Imp.,

alas, that content of the reference is the only thing

Who says it’s the only thing? Under this metaphor the content is irrelevant, since only the morphology in competition is at point

each perspective is that exterior position…”

But each “exterior” cannot appeal to a greater truth.
there is no greater truth
It is forced to be in competition with other truths, and only the exercise of power can resolve the “debate”?
exactly
Hence the “content” cannot be declared “empty”, but only impotent in consequence.
If the concept/organism survives it proves potent.
use is more important than survival

so the herd determines the ubermensch? no…

This is exactly the thing that maddened Nietzsche, that his noblese idea of the overman would be subject to the herd.
hardly
The fact that Spinoza grasped, and that Nietzsche ultimately could not grasp is that the very vitality of the herd, the strength of its concepts, if the universe is going to be simply a contest of physiologies with no transcendent values, if it kills off the overman, is “right”, is “superior”, is “uber”, despite all the machinations Nietzsche uses to undermine it. It is pure contest.
pure contest yes… might makes right… nihilistic values hold sway…
When power is knowing, then whoever wins, knows.
no, when power is knowing, whoever knows wins

where does your confusion lie?

I did not understand (…), they seemed to separate incomplete thoughts.

that from which one builds

Under the metaphor of the organism, there is no “that from which one builds”, there is only the preservation of the form as the highest value.

“form” is arbitrary… under the metaphor of the organism, it “grows” or changes from one thing to (hopefully) the next… there is no guarantee

the blank canvas upon which the artist creates

There is no blank canvas on which one creates in this metaphor, rather the image of the world is determined by the physiology and ontogeny of organisms and concepts.

in this metaphor, the meaning is non existent so the canvas must be blank- meaning is invented…there is no definite next or final stage in the growth

and the materiality of the power of god exists where?

In the material effects of those that believe in him. If concepts are to be given a physiology and an ontogeny, then they are given a material body of effects and are not judged by the “content” of their belief. The question is not of the materiality of the power of god, it is the materiality of the “concept” of god.

reinforced by believers who continue to posit the false images of that which is never perceived… “But of course, following his analysis, the “imaginary metaphysic of god and heaven” is an organism, a concept with a real physiology with real consequences, apart from transcendent values.” - no organism, no physiology, no consequences

but there can be… it just isn’t permenant

But the nature of this impermanency, under this metaphor is not that of Nihilistic vanishing, but in the ontogeny and physiology of concepts, which record a history, and also the “imprint”, if you would allow, of the world within which they compete.

no, there is no goal… there is no ontogeny or physiology of arbitrary concepts…

The only interpretation/valuation is in the persistence of the man/concept/organism.
exactly

So the persistence of the herd and its “concepts” provides the interpretation/valuation of those concepts. They are not inherently weak, until proven so by contest.
no, not “weak”, just empty

organisms are random jots on a blank canvas

Not under this metaphor.

history is not future nor is history persistence… the “body plans” are nothing but human interpretations of that which can not be known… they are not parts of god

You completely ignore the operative elements in this metaphor, which focus both on the materiality of concepts and their ontogeny. All that you dismiss is present in his thinking here. I do not see it here

What void?
the nihilism that underlies all

Not present in this metaphor, in fact the opposite is posited, a ground that is understood through the physiology and ontogeny of concepts.

but the end result can not be foretold

and you are missing the fact that human interpretation of physicality and persistence of a constantly changing and growing thing, the identity of which changes at each moment, is not persistent nor “truth”…

No it is in competition. It is a perpetual expression of power, which does not mean that it is in reference to “nothing”, but rather that it is conducted within material circumstance, within material limits, and therefore expresses those limits.
and from where did you invent these “limits”?
“Human interpretation” itself as a physiology and ontogeny.
no, the human interpretation is flux. there is no set physiology or ontogeny (which have definite end points)

the change from birth to death… not fixed at any given point, but constantly in flux… to claim that it will be x in the future is an error in the belief of cause and effect…

This of course has nothing to do with ontogeny. The persistence of form through the course and development of an individual is central the word. Genetic.
persistence of form? there is no such thing, nor is there for nietzsche

no, the persistence of the organism is the persistence of the organism. the background is nothing

This has nothing to do with the metaphor of an organism. A fish cannot live on land. If you found a fish on land you would have no understanding of the ontogeny and physiology of the fish until you realized that it developed in the water. The “background” of the water is expressed in the fish. Just as the background of a concept is expressed it is physiology and ontogeny.

a fish is a fish, regardless of water. a concept is a concept regardless of background because for nietzsche the background is nihilism… again, your arguing more of a derridan point than nietzschean

exactly, regardless of the untermensch

Unless the untermensch prevents him through the exercise of his or their power. There is no such thing as a “fair fight”.

Dunamis

but then the untermensch becomes the ubermensch…

-Imp

[Dunamis]

Imp.,

might makes right… nihilistic values hold sway…

Might makes right is not nihilism, because might is always the expression of capacity within material contexts. Might is not exercised in a vaccum, nor on a blank canvas.

no, when power is knowing, whoever knows wins

Synonymous

“form” is arbitrary…

It is not arbitrary, or offspring would bear no resemblance to what produced them. It is the correspondence that gives ontogeny its relevance.

under the metaphor of the organism, it “grows” or changes from one thing to (hopefully) the next… there is no guarantee

No one spoke of guarantees.

in this metaphor, the meaning is non existent so the canvas must be blank- meaning is invented…

No it is not simply invented, it is evolved in a physiology which has an ontogeny. The image of the world is determined.

there is no definite next or final stage in the growth

No on spoke of “definite next” or “final stages”.

reinforced by believers who continue to posit the false images of that which is never perceived…

There is no position from which to stand and assess this “falseness”. There is only the context of the physiology of those concepts which is expressed in their material effects through their believers. The content is irrelevant and cannot be declared either “empty” or “false” from a non-relative position. Only vying makes it so.

no organism, no physiology, no consequences

You simply contradict the entire meaning of his statement. Brilliant exegesis.

no, there is no goal… there is no ontogeny or physiology of arbitrary concepts…

Who spoke of a goal? As to the rest, refer to the comment above.

no, not “weak”, just empty

Because content is irrelevant in the contest of physiologies, this is a meaningless assessment.

I do not see it here

You do not follow the implications of ontogeny, which bears few of the meanings you have attributed to it and is based on many of those you have excluded.

but the end result can not be foretold

Who spoke of foretelling results?

and from where did you invent these “limits”?

They are implied in the physicality of the metaphor. Nietzsche did not say the physiology and ontogeny of blobs and concepts, he said organisms and concepts.

no, the human interpretation is flux.

Not under this metaphor. The image of the world is determined by the physiology and ontogeny of organisms and concepts.

there is no set physiology or ontogeny (which have definite end points)

Who said “set”? Beyond that you are simply arguing with Nietzsche, for it was he who chose these metaphors.

persistence of form? there is no such thing, nor is there for Nietzsche

It is implicit in ontogeny.

a fish is a fish, regardless of water. a concept is a concept regardless of background because for nietzsche the background is nihilism…

Not in this metaphor. The concept and the fish here is put in the context of its development.

your arguing more of a derridan point than nietzschean

In this metaphor Nietzsche perhaps glimpsed beyond his private project, into the very future of his philosophy which he could not imagine, that the relativity he unleashed undermined the values he favored.

“but then the untermensch becomes the ubermensch…”

Most certainly. But the new ubermensch might very well believe in concepts Nietzsche could not stomach. If you are going to dismiss causes, points, lines and planes, there there is no reason that an Ubermensch cannot be formed from a multiplicity, a collective “herd” There is no fundamental and inherent value of the Individual.

Dunamis

[Impenitent]

@Dunamis

Imp.,

might makes right… nihilistic values hold sway…

Might makes right is not nihilism, because might is always the expression of capacity within material contexts. Might is not exercised in a vaccum, nor on a blank canvas.
no, the canvas upon which might paints is nihilism

no, when power is knowing, whoever knows wins

Synonymous

not exactly, but why split hairs

“form” is arbitrary…

It is not arbitrary, or offspring would bear no resemblance to what produced them. It is the correspondence that gives ontogeny its relevance.

offspring? this is your difficulty… what “creates” language? is it a pure invention of men? as nietzsche believed or is it a necessary circle unto itself as derrida argued?

under the metaphor of the organism, it “grows” or changes from one thing to (hopefully) the next… there is no guarantee

No one spoke of guarantees.

yes, part of the definition of the term “ontogeny” is a guarantee of “final” adult form…

in this metaphor, the meaning is non existent so the canvas must be blank- meaning is invented…

No it is not simply invented, it is evolved in a physiology which has an ontogeny. The image of the world is determined.

again, this is not nietzsche, it is derrida…

there is no definite next or final stage in the growth

No on spoke of “definite next” or “final stages”.

yes, it is connotated in the term “ontogeny”…

reinforced by believers who continue to posit the false images of that which is never perceived…

There is no position from which to stand and assess this “falseness”.
lack of empirical evidence
There is only the context of the physiology of those concepts which is expressed in their material effects through their believers. The content is irrelevant and cannot be declared either “empty” or “false” from a non-relative position. Only vying makes it so.
no all contexts are ultimately nothing… vying against this nihilism is belief in the context… the context’s ontology (meaning, truth) remains completely subjective

no organism, no physiology, no consequences

You simply contradict the entire meaning of his statement. Brilliant exegesis.

no, I contradicted nothing… you were the one who posited “But of course, following his analysis, the “imaginary metaphysic of god and heaven” is an organism, a concept with a real physiology with real consequences, apart from transcendent values. This seems like something that Nietzsche finds rather unpalatable, but nonetheless a consequence of his reasoning.” … look closely, it is for nietzsche an imaginary metaphysic upon which you posit “real” physiology and “real” values… nietzsche would never suggest that something “real” comes from that which is imagined…

no, there is no goal… there is no ontogeny or physiology of arbitrary concepts…

Who spoke of a goal? As to the rest, refer to the comment above.

the goal is wrapped up in the definition of ontogeny… ditto above

no, not “weak”, just empty

Because content is irrelevant in the contest of physiologies, this is a meaningless assessment.

but for nietzsche, content is all there is

I do not see it here

You do not follow the implications of ontogeny, which bears few of the meanings you have attributed to it and is based on many of those you have excluded.

yes, the implications are that the future is definitely predictable… nietzsche would deny this… this must follow because it is in the pattern of growth, but NO! nietzsche denies that pattern…

but the end result can not be foretold

Who spoke of foretelling results? it is wrapped up in the meaning of ontogeny…

and from where did you invent these “limits”?

They are implied in the physicality of the metaphor. Nietzsche did not say the physiology and ontogeny of blobs and concepts, he said organisms and concepts.

he said “With complete calm we will let physiology and the ontogeny of organisms and concepts determine how our image of the world can be so very different from the disclosed essence of the world.” … the ontological meaning of concepts is “so very different from the disclosed essence of the world” … the disclosed essence for nietzsche is flux…

no, the human interpretation is flux.

Not under this metaphor. The image of the world is determined by the physiology and ontogeny of organisms and concepts.

no… re-examine the passage… “we let (an act of power) physiology and ontology of organisms and concepts determine…” (this is derrida’s interpretation) “…how our image of the world can be so very different from the disclosed essence of the world.” - our image of the world - expressed in language - is different from what actually appears

there is no set physiology or ontogeny (which have definite end points)

Who said “set”? Beyond that you are simply arguing with Nietzsche, for it was he who chose these metaphors.

persistence of form? there is no such thing, nor is there for Nietzsche

It is implicit in ontogeny.

a fish is a fish, regardless of water. a concept is a concept regardless of background because for nietzsche the background is nihilism…

Not in this metaphor. The concept and the fish here is put in the context of its development.

your arguing more of a derridan point than nietzschean

In this metaphor Nietzsche perhaps glimpsed beyond his private project, into the very future of his philosophy which he could not imagine, that the relativity he unleashed undermined the values he favored.

but he did imagine it, that is precicely why it requires power to hold it

“but then the untermensch becomes the ubermensch…”

Most certainly. But the new ubermensch might very well believe in concepts Nietzsche could not stomach. If you are going to dismiss causes, points, lines and planes, there there is no reason that an Ubermensch cannot be formed from a multiplicity, a collective “herd” There is no fundamental and inherent value of the Individual.

Dunamis

yes, the ubermensch might very well believe in things other than nietzsche… but to say that a herd is an ubermensch turns nietzsche on his head…

-Imp

[Dunamis]

Imp.,

no, the canvas upon which might paints is nihilism

We seem to not be able to incorporate the metaphor into your grander plan to have complete and total menainglessness. Only by leaving the metaphor are you able to establish your dystopia.

offspring? this is your difficulty… what “creates” language? is it a pure invention of men?

Stay within the metaphor. Within the metaphor language (concepts) seems an autogenic process of life, just as are organisms. To call language an invention of men, under this metaphor, is to call children the pure invention of men. Rather language and organisms are evolving structures that are independent of teleology or invention, each of which determine the image of the world. Concepts are no more invented than are endoskeletons.

yes, part of the definition of the term “ontogeny” is a guarantee of “final” adult form…

The study of embryology does not guarantee any particular individual his “development”. It is not my metaphor, but his. I suggest it need to be seen in evolutionary contexts.

again, this is not nietzsche, it is derrida…

The word “determined” is taken from Nietzsche specific to the quote. It is Nietzsche in this particular case.

yes, it is connotated in the term “ontogeny”…

Again, Nietzsche chose the term, I suggest not accidentally. In fact it fits within his genealogical analysis of values. Nietzsche was expert at applying historical contingency to values of the past. He just was not so great at applying it to his own values. This metaphor seems to be an example of his clearer understanding.

lack of empirical evidence

You are retreating into your Humean universe. Here Nietzsche is not speaking as an empiricist. The concept of the empiricist and the idealist are neither “correct”, but fight it out in terms of power and power alone.

no all contexts are ultimately nothing…

Your use of “ultimately” is rhetorical. A context does not have to be ultimately anything. Contexts are determining factors as to the power, and hence the physiology of the concepts. Tell a fish that the context of water is ultimately nothing.

vying against this nihilism is belief in the context…

All concepts are a belief in the context. The material effects of that belief are the sum of that physiology’s power, a power which determines its “truth”.

the context’s ontology (meaning, truth) remains completely subjective

Subjective but engaged by other subjectivities, which in contest prove one version to be superior than another. Nihilism is just one more version in competition.

the “imaginary metaphysic of god and heaven” is an organism,

no, the “concept of” an imaginary…god is an organism. You seem to not be able to treat concepts apart from their content, which is essential to this metaphor.

look closely, it is for nietzsche an imaginary metaphysic upon which you posit “real” physiology and “real” values

Because there is not “ultimate” referent truth, all descriptions are “imaginary”, but these imaginaries are engaged upon a real ground, with the real consequences of power, and therefore a knowing, real because concepts are compared to organisms, and not figments, or blobs, real because power is real.

nietzsche would never suggest that something “real” comes from that which is imagined…

He does here. Power is not imagined, but it is produced through what is imagined. Science is exactly this case in point. It is only the most exact humanizing – an imaginary thing – but it produces real power.

but for nietzsche, content is all there is

Not in this metaphor. Morphology is all there is. Morphology is content free.

this must follow because it is in the pattern of growth, but NO! nietzsche denies that pattern…

Not in this metaphor. The predictability fails though at the trans-individual analysis. The mutation and evolution of the species is inherently unpredictable, but still traceable backwards. It is this that is the essence of his point. The evolving physiologies of concepts and organisms determine the image of the world.

it is wrapped up in the meaning of ontogeny…

Not when ontogeny is seen evolutionarily.

the ontological meaning of concepts is “so very different from the disclosed essence of the world” … the disclosed essence for nietzsche is flux…

Here exactly is the refutation of the “content” of the form. Concepts are just morphological evolutions. The disclosed essence is not pure flux, but accomplished through and therefore reflective of a material process of power engaged with material limits.

re-examine the passage… “we let (an act of power) physiology and ontology of organisms and concepts determine…” (this is derrida’s interpretation)

“An act of power”? To let is an act of submission. It is not an active state, but a passive one.

• our image of the world - expressed in language - is different from what actually appears

This is not within the quote. The language we use would seem to be synonymous with the “concepts” and therefore something that evolves. The appearance, that is the image is determined by the physiology, not contrasted to it.

but he did imagine it, that is precicely why it requires power to hold it

He simply did not grasp that the power of the “empty” concepts of others, authenticates them in a universe where only power holds sway. The power of the concepts of the herd is as “real” and “true” as the power of his own.

but to say that a herd is an ubermensch turns nietzsche on his head…

Which is exactly what happens if you take Nietzsche’s argument to its end. The exercise of power in a universe with no rules, without the inherent valuation or even reality of the individual places the ubermensch in the problematic of fighting the “unfair fight”. In terms of power the ulitmate determiner, in many ways Nietzsche brings a knife to a gunfight.

Dunamis

[Impenitent]

@Dunamis

Imp.,

no, the canvas upon which might paints is nihilism

We seem to not be able to incorporate the metaphor into your grander plan to have complete and total menainglessness.
it isn’t my plan, it is nietzsche’s realization
Only by leaving the metaphor are you able to establish your dystopia.
my dystopia?

offspring? this is your difficulty… what “creates” language? is it a pure invention of men?

Stay within the metaphor. Within the metaphor language (concepts) seems an autogenic process of life, just as are organisms. To call language an invention of men, under this metaphor, is to call children the pure invention of men. Rather language and organisms are evolving structures that are independent of teleology or invention, each of which determine the image of the world. Concepts are no more invented then are endoskeletons.

alas, for nietzsche, this is not the case… to suggest otherwise is to claim, as derrida did, that language creates humanity… but for nietzsche it is human as artist, as creator…

yes, part of the definition of the term “ontogeny” is a guarantee of “final” adult form…

The study of embryology does not guarantee any particular individual his “development”. It is not my metaphor, but his. I suggest it need to be seen in evolutionary contexts. not a particular individual but one that must adhere to a preordained pattern which does not exist for nietzsche

again, this is not nietzsche, it is derrida…

The word “determined” is taken from Nietzsche specific to the quote. It is Nietzsche in this particular case.

yes, it is connotated in the term “ontogeny”…

Again, Nietzsche chose the term, I suggest not accidentally. In fact it fits within his genealogical analysis of values. Nietzsche was expert at applying historical contingency to values of the past. He just was not so great at applying it to his own values. This metaphor seems to be an example of his clearer understanding.

lack of empirical evidence

You are retreating into your Humean universe. Here Nietzsche is not speaking as an empiricist.
but yes he does because there is no idealist plan for nietzsche… all idealist values lead to nihilism…
The concept of the empiricist and the idealist are neither “correct”, but fight it out in terms of power and power alone.

no all contexts are ultimately nothing…

Your use of “ultimately” is rhetorical.
no, it is nietzschean… if you think nietzsche’s point loses something because it can be called rhetoric, what does that say about anything that can be called rhetorical? and isn’t that nietzsche’s point?
A context does not have to be ultimately anything. Contexts are determining factors as to the power, and hence the physiology of the concepts. Tell a fish that the context of water is ultimately nothing.
why? a fish wouldn’t understand… that is the key…

vying against this nihilism is belief in the context…

All concepts are a belief in the context. The material effects of that belief are the sum of that physiology’s power, a power which determines its “truth”.

the context’s ontology (meaning, truth) remains completely subjective

Subjective but engaged by other subjectivities, which in contest prove one version to be superior than another. Nihilism is just one more version in competition.

the “imaginary metaphysic of god and heaven” is an organism,

no, the “concept of” an imaginary…god is an organism. You seem to not be able to treat concepts apart from their content, which is essential to this metaphor.

concepts apart from their content? not it is this (of course only when seen apart from this…) you make no sense…

look closely, it is for nietzsche an imaginary metaphysic upon which you posit “real” physiology and “real” values

Because there is not “ultimate” referent truth, all descriptions are “imaginary”, but these imaginaries are engaged upon a real ground, with the real consequences of power, and therefore a knowing, real because concepts are compared to organisms, and not figments, or blobs, real because power is real.

which can not be known… think about it… concepts about a non- existent referent truth? real ground, real consequences, real real real… but with no reference!

nietzsche would never suggest that something “real” comes from that which is imagined…

He does here. Power is not imagined, but it is produced through what is imagined. Science is exactly this case in point. It is only the most exact humanizing – an imaginary thing – but it produces real power.

[b]no no no… "Only as creators!— This has given me the greatest trouble and still does: to realize that what things are called is incomparably more important than what they are. The reputation, name, and appearance, the usual measure and weight of a thing, what it counts for—originally almost always wrong and arbitrary, thrown over things like a dress and altogether foreign to their nature and even to their skin—all this grows from generation unto generation, merely because people believe in it, until it gradually grows to be part of the thing and turns into its very body: what at first was appearance becomes in the end, almost invariably, the essence and is effective as such! How foolish it would be to suppose that one only needs to point out this origin and this misty shroud of delusion in order to destroy the world that counts for real, so-called “reality”! We can destroy only as creators!— But let us not forget this either: it is enough to create new names and estimations and probabilities in order to create in the long run new “things.” -GS 58

but for nietzsche, content is all there is

Not in this metaphor. Morphology is all there is. Morphology is content free.

this must follow because it is in the pattern of growth, but NO! nietzsche denies that pattern…

Not in this metaphor. The predictability fails though at the trans-individual analysis. The mutation and evolution of the species is inherently unpredictable, but still traceable backwards. It is this is the essence of his point. The evolving physiologies of concepts and organisms determine the image of the world.

no, for nietzsche, the artist determines the image of the world.

it is wrapped up in the meaning of ontogeny…

Not when ontogeny is seen evolutionarily.

evolving? the meaning isn’t fixed? you make my point

the ontological meaning of concepts is “so very different from the disclosed essence of the world” … the disclosed essence for nietzsche is flux…

Here exactly is the refutation of the “content” of the form. Concepts are just morphological evolutions. The disclosed essence is not pure flux, but accomplished through and therefore reflective of a material process of power engaged with material limits.

again, the disclosed essence for nietzsche is flux. change, impermanent, indeterminate, unknowable…

re-examine the passage… “we let (an act of power) physiology and ontology of organisms and concepts determine…” (this is derrida’s interpretation)

“An act of power”? To let is an act of submission. It is just “calmly”. It is not an active state, but a passive one.

ever program a computer? let is not submissive… being forced to do is an act of submission… to let means that there was a choice…

• our image of the world - expressed in language - is different from what actually appears

This is not within the quote. The language we use would seem to be synonymous with the “concepts” and therefore something that evolves. The appearance, that is the image is determined by the physiology, not contrasted to it.
the quote:
“With complete calm we will let physiology and the ontogeny of organisms and concepts determine how our image of the world can be so very different from the disclosed essence of the world.”
for nietzsche, our image of the world is expressed in language…
there is no evolution for there is no end product…
the image is determined by the artist who creates it…
when an image is accepted that was not created, then you have the act of a herd animal, not a creator…

but he did imagine it, that is precicely why it requires power to hold it

He simply did not grasp that the power of the “empty” concepts of others, authenticates them in a universe where only power holds sway. The power of the concepts of the herd is as “real” and “true” as the power of his own.
he ignored it, yes

but to say that a herd is an ubermensch turns nietzsche on his head…

Which is exactly what happens if you take Nietzsche’s argument to its end. The exercise of power in a universe with no rules, without the inherent valuation or even reality of the individual places the ubermensch in the problematic of fighting the “unfair fight”. In terms of power the ulitmate determiner, in many ways Nietzsche brings a knife to a gunfight.

lol, yes but the fight is now enjoined and many others bring bazookas…

Dunamis

-Imp

[Uniqor]

Well, since the disccusson of ubermensch is still on…

going down refers to zarathustra’s leaving his mountain home to mingle with the herd… pity is his final sin, pity for the herd is what zarathustra overcomes…

Would you not say that pity is a sign of decadence? Which is all my point.

the untermensch believes while not creating…

Believes what?

the ubermensch is the creator…

The creator of what?

wagner was no ubermensch…

I never said that he was. Wagner the untermensch seems to have great creativity, doesn’t that contradict your “main” watershed?

[Impenitent]

@Uniqor

Well, since the disccusson of ubermensch is still on…

going down refers to zarathustra’s leaving his mountain home to mingle with the herd… pity is his final sin, pity for the herd is what zarathustra overcomes…

Would you not say that pity is a sign of decadence? Which is all my point.

partially yes

the untermensch believes while not creating…

Believes what? whatever

the ubermensch is the creator…

The creator of what? whatever

wagner was no ubermensch…

I never said that he was. Wagner the untermensch seems to have great creativity, doesn’t that contradict your “main” watershed?

not at all…

-Imp

[Uniqor]

not at all…

Fair enough, but this is when I really need some quotation relating to creativiy and uber/untermensch. Also it seems that Wagner’s musical creations, according to your definition, were mere illusions but not actual, proper creativiy, so could you give quotes that involve defining this creativity?

[Dunamis]

Imp.,

alas, for nietzsche, this is not the case…

Alas, you do not seem to be able to stick to Nietzsche’s words.

but one that must adhere to a preordained pattern which does not exist for Nietzsche

not when the mutation is involved. The mutation is the break in the pattern, which is then determined, i.e. judged to be powerful or not, by material contexts.

but yes he does because there is no idealist plan for nietzsche…

That is because Nietzsche cannot, does not, include the historically determined nature of his own values. His values and concepts are simply in competition with all the others, not transcendent truths.

and isn’t that nietzsche’s point?

It is part of his point, but the other part is that power is the determiner of rhetoric’s “truth”. The rhetorical is subject to its consequences.

a fish wouldn’t understand… that is the key…

Just as you seem to not understand. The “blank canvas” is the nihilist-fish’s point of view of the water when arguing with other fish, not realizing that the canvas is not blank, but rather a material limit to conceptual and physical morphologies. Let the nihilist-fish wriggle free from the water and discover the nihilism of dry land.

concepts apart from their content?

That is what you get when you dismiss transcended essences. Concepts that only exist as morphological expressions of power. They are said to have content, but their truth is only known and gauged by their power, not their correspondence to an extra-linguistic “reality”.

A corresponding idea found in Leibniz:

[i]“Expression is common to all forms, and it is a genus of which natural perception, animal sensation and intellectual knowledge are species”

(Letter to Arnauld)[/i]

which can not be known… think about it… concepts about a non- existent referent truth? real ground, real consequences, real real real… but with no reference!

There is no reference outside of a perspective that is fought for, but any and all perspectives that persist do so out of power. That power is real. It can only be judged by the values of particular concepts in competition, but the perpetuation of a perspective alone speaks to its power, and therefore its “truth”. Concepts are not inherently “true” or “untrue”, “empty” or “full”, but only powerful or not.

for nietzsche, the artist determines the image of the world.

Not in this metaphor. The image of the world is let to be determined by the physiology and ontogeny of organisms and concepts. I’m not sure how many times I have to quote the text we seem to be discussing.

evolving? the meaning isn’t fixed? you make my point

It isn’t fixed, but it isn’t arbitrary either. It is the expression of power within material circumstance.

again, the disclosed essence for nietzsche is flux. change, impermanent, indeterminate, unknowable…

But not arbitrary, under this metaphor, a morphological expression of power.

ever program a computer? let is not submissive… being forced to do is an act of submission… to let means that there was a choice…

Which was my original point as to the unclear nature of Nietzsche’s power. He verges here on a Spinozian virtue. If the image of the world is already determined by the “physiology and ontogeny of organisms and concepts”, then calmly “letting” it do what it is going to do anyway is simply an embracing of the process. It is choosing what one cannot help but do, but choosing it nonetheless. This is Spinoza’s view of moving from a passive to an active state. Understanding the nature of one’s determination, allows one to embrace it and to become more an efficient cause for your actions. It is an act of power, but an act in the face of determinism, not a nihilistic scribbling on a blank canvas. That seems to be what is implied in this metaphor. Whether he deviates from it in other parts of his philosophy is another question.

there is no evolution for there is no end product…

Evolution does not imply “end product”. You mistakenly attribute teleology to evolution.

the image is determined by the artist who creates it…

Not in the case of this metaphor.

when an image is accepted that was not created, then you have the act of a herd animal, not a creator…

In this metaphor the image is accepted as determined.

yes but the fight is now enjoined and many others bring bazookas…

Inherent in Nietzsche’s perspective if the privileging of German Romanticism’s glorification of the “soul”, when in fact the consequence of his de-humanization of “reality”, his historicizing of language, the questioning of even lines, planes and causes, is that the Self, in the realm of power, has no privilege. It is not mano a mano. Concept a concept. A concept is really more an organ of power within an organism of power, whose “truth” can only be known it its persistence and victory. (And in this way Spinoza saw more deeply than Nietzsche). A person is really an assemblage of bodies, a concept is nothing outside the assemblage it participates in. Nietzsche strikes me as a man faced by a pack of dogs, and as they attack and surround him, he declares, “this cannot be, you are only dogs, using empty concepts. You cannot do this, I am the prelude to the overman”, and the dogs respond, “Munch, munch, munch.” The “concepts” of the dogs prove true and not empty by virtue of their power, just as all concepts do. Nietzsche’s myopia upon the individual weakens his understanding of just what power is.

Dunamis