The way the concept of the word ‘absolute’ is working entirely depends on the context of the aphorism in which it is used. You will find a lot of contradiction in Nietzsche if you cross-equivocate the concept between aphorisms and epigrams.
Not to say he does not contradict himself, or that he always does so accidentally (good eye, Erik). Only that when discussing a concept in Nietzsche you have to be careful what you do with it and where you put it, what you explain further with it, especially.
For instance, I have seen communists use material from Twilight which is in favor of socialist revolution (N speaks fondly about it here), to support other socialist principles which N clearly does not espouse, anywhere.
The WTP theory can be said to be absolutely true, but not because the statement ‘the WTP is true’ is true. The WTP is the prerequisite condition for any kind of truth whatsoever, any kind of processing-of-information at any level, whether atomic, molecular, biological, what have you. It is the most fundamental ontological fact before all else. It is that hubristic rebellion Saully saw on his mushrooms. It is why there is something rather than nothing.
Fiddling with the meager statement ‘the WTP is true’ is irrelevant, because even if it were false it would still be true.
For something cannot be incorrect or false or wrong without some kind of discriminating power at work… some kind of interpretive scheme that has taken possession of the world for its purposes and found, as a contingency to the physiological plan of its own body and the perspective results this creates, the world to be a certain way and not another, declaring ‘this is false and that is true!’
Zee veel to powar, and nossing besides.
On that note, there are plenty of epistemological problems with perspectivism or what is sometimes called epistemological relativism.
