I would like to continue my work in this thread, but if it gets locked, I will do so in another one.
Carry on, Saully. You do a lot of hard work on Nietzsche. I think everyone here could stand to modify their tone. I’ll be watching…
I must admit I am not without ‘sin’ myself. Thank you, Faust.
Perhaps I should explain. It’s funny that I have been forced to take the position of Philosophy (i.e., above Science and Religion), if only to represent actual philosophers like Hume and Nietzsche.
There is a joke that goes thus:
[size=95]An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking through the hills of Scotland. Cresting the top of a hill, they see, on top of the next, a black sheep. The engineer says: “What do you know, the sheep in Scotland are black!” “Well, some of the sheep in Scotland are black”, replies the experimental physicist. The theoretical physicist considers this for a moment and says “Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black.” “Well,” the philosopher responds, “on one side, anyway.”
[attributed to William Knorpp.][/size]
Where did we find the knowledge that every event be an effect?—
That is only so in a scientific paradigm, because it is linked to action. Hence, action = -reaction. In other fields of thought, action or reaction is not necessarily of the essence in understanding what is going on, or what is. The world entirely may be seen as becoming, which would eliminate the possibility of separate entities and cause or effect. But that does not have any relevance to the scientific paradigm, which only exists in terms of ‘things’, even in the cae of probabilities, which will actually be used as things (bits) in quantumcomputing. Science is not just imagination, neither is cause and effect, but still, imagination is at the root of understanding it. It just doesn’t always have use for it.
I’m still sceptical about my own idea about Hume, I’ve read quite little of him and many intelligent people hold him in high esteem, but so far I am still under the impression that he misinterpreted Newtons cause and effect as meant to dictate things from and within every kind of paradigm. That is not true at all. Cause and effect only works when you work with it, but then it works with certainty.
I don’t know how you’re going to find this, Sauwelios, but I shall step to the philosophical coal-face to hew a few meagre splinters of my own fuel, drawing not on Nietzsche himself, directly, but on two of those working in his philosophical image.
In What Is Philosophy? (1994), Deleuze and Guattari tell us (p.5):
They go on:
The line of descent here is quite specific (p.7):
Thus it becomes clear that concepts are inseperable from the “conceptual personae” that assist in creating them, and who thus have a certain power over the philosopher himself (p.64):
Together, philosophers and their conceptual personae, or rather, conceptual personae and their philosophers, create not just concepts but also planes of immanence (p.36):
Philosophy is not, then, and absolute “image of thought”, but enters into relations with others, including especially art and science (p.198):
Instead, art, science and philosophy must all grapple with “chaos” (p.202):
So it seems that philosophical workers have their own fellow travellers!
I am usually surprised when WL supports me, or seems to support me (I add this because I find him quite unfathomable); and it seems that, when he deigns to come down from his solitude in order to post here (which is rare enough!) and then posts in a discussion in which I, too, take part, he usually does support me!—I usually try not to betray my surprise, and usually do not even respond to his posts, because I think, as the saying goes, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt—not in every case, mind you, but certainly in the case of WL.
Why do I break my silence now, then?—It is because I want to confirm some of what he has said: my rank name change is superficial, it was just a small correction I wanted to make; for a long time I have recognised my intellectual superior in Nietzsche. But whereas previously, I still thought I could regard myself as a philosopher, albeit not a great philosopher, in the course of my reading Nietzsche’s Task (which project is still unfinished, by the way), my mind was changed. To become what I am now occurred to me as perfecting myself as much as possible in the art of Nietzsche-interpretation. Nietzsche is to me indeed a destiny, and like my other, mostly lesser, destinies, one I embrace…
But there is perhaps a greater destiny than Nietzsche, even for me. It’s called philosophy. For me, philosophy is even more important than Nietzsche. Thus I recognise that he was most probably wrong about biology. One of my tasks—one of our tasks, we Nietzschean knights!—is ‘correcting’ Nietzsche.
P R A V A C O R R I G E R E E T R E C T A C O R R O B O R A R E E T S A N C T A S U B L I M A R E
Deleuze & Co say “philosopher”, not “philosophical worker”. The philosophical worker is no philosopher, but a kind of scientist/scholar (the German word for “science” also includes Philosophy and the Languages, and the word for “scholar” also includes the scientist).
They seem to level the ‘philosopher’, the scientist and the artist. This is in agreement with what I said only if the ‘philosopher’ here does not mean the actual philosopher, but only the philosophical worker.
Also, I’m not impressed with their little variation on the word “various”. Does the scientist bring back variables? And not rather relations between variables? E.g., Einstein’s famous formula? And is it not rather the philosopher’s task to determine the meaning of those variables? E.g., what ‘energy’ is? (Nietzsche’s answer is, of course, will to power.) And what do “variation” and “variety” at all mean in this context?
I think there must be several divisions of the Nietzschean knights, and that perhaps we should change the name of the ‘party’ to the “Nietzschean Workers Party” (or the “Aristocratic-Radicalist Philosophical Workers Party”, as I had in mind in the first place). One of the divisions—the one in which I would like to be—shall be the one whose task is to battle ‘monsters’; another shall be the one whose task is to battle other, non-Nietzschean (or non-aristocratic-radicalist) philosophical workers. The task of the latter is to vanquish its opponents as such: their defeat shall mean their defection. And ultimately, all scholars and scientists shall be aristocratic-radicalist philosophical workers, of course: so that all scholars and scientists may fight for philosophy together, under one banner. No longer in the service of science, but now in the service of philosophy! All hail the Nietzschean Knights!
Sauw-
Nietzsche did not preach dogma. You do. So you see, there is a difference between your understandings and his.
Matty is quite insightful for posting those quotes here - we would be wise to reconsider that everyone, including and especially Nietzsche, creates his concepts and does not “discover” them. The philosopher does not discover “truths”, he invents them. And they hold true only for himself, to the degree of his depth of insight and self-knowledge and genuine honesty - they also hold true to the extent that this personal interpretation and experience is shared by another, but for the most part, this cannot be known. Knowledge is wholly personal and for the most part cannot be communicated - only the symbols may be exchanged, to (hopefully) generate and spur the creation of similar conceptual knowledge in the receiver of the symbols (language).
Nietzsche created wonderful concepts. His paradigms, as the sets of related concepts he used, were original and insightful - but this insight he had is precisely because of the degree to which his ideas aligned with human psychological factors, aligned with realities of the human condition and consciousness. Nietzsche did delve within the realities of the mind, and he came up with psychological treasures. The more he speaks beyond the individual and collective psychological realities, the more you can be sure he was hiding his knowledge aphoristically, and ironically, so that it may only be realised by the adept and self-aware individual who interprets Nietzsche’s words rather than absorbs unquestioningly Nietzsche’s and other’s interpretations.
Knowledge is only created. By the individual. Nietzsche, like all systems of thought or languages or sets of concepts, is a roadmap, a guidepost to point you towards things within yourself. The journey to wisdom is not without, it is within. Nietzsche knew this, but in his own wisdom and aphoristic style he cleverly hid much of this knowledge - in this way he operated via the occult laws, which he certainly was aware of. There are tremendous and deep insights, entire worlds within Nietzsche’s words. They are wonderous, expansive, beautiful and monstrous - and to the extent that they help guide us towards our own inner light of consciousness, they are quite ‘true’. But with a narrow and rigid dogmatic interpretation, looking only at the words and not at what lies behind them, or taking them as a Gospel, all the subtle psychological knowledge is lost.
Nietzsche did not intend, nor did he accomplish, discovering truths or facts of the world, he did not create or criticise science or philosophy or religion or human social history - Nietzsche dived within the human psyche, he extrapolated truths of the human condition by understanding himself first, and as a corrolary of this, others as well. . . but his knowledge is wholly psychological, of human perception, of human consciousness, of human thought and sentiment, of human instinct and intuition, and of the human potential for knowedge, which lies, as Matty points out, in the human capacity for concept creation - as all experiences that take place within the mind are conceptual, where they are not emotional. Most, of course, intertwine both of these. Nietzsche in a sense gave us a wonderful guide to self-discovery, realising that wisdom and insight can only be created by us as individuals.
Certain ideas of Nietzsche’s may be useful to you, such as the ordering of rank or the will to power, but to myself or others, they may not be useful. What you ought to realise is that you need to expand your mind out enough to encompass the possibility, and all of the implications that follow from it, that both of us are correct, in that we operate by that which is good for us as individuals, that which we need in a psychological sense. You preach Nietzsche as dogma, as Fact and Truth for Everyone, and the extent that they do not “get it” means they are wrong - I offer up an alternative view for you to consider, if you are at the point in your own internal evolution that you are capable of putting aside hubris to do so.
Again, an ungrounded assertion. Will you never learn?
Again, an ungrounded insinuation. Will you ever learn?
Idem.
Are you not generalising without (offering) justification here? In how many human psyche’s did he dive? And can one really dive in another person’s psyche? Methinks you contradict what you write earlier on in your post here (about knowledge being wholly personal etc.).
And what is good? What do we need? Is it not power?—What I think you fail to see is that the will to power is beyond all your relativations. How do you interpret interpretation? Can you give me your interpretation of interpretation, please?
Please give me your alternative view on viewing, then.
My point here is about the relationship between philosophy, art and science, not the distinction between philosophers and philosophical workers, although I detect a vaguely Leninist bent to the separation you are trying to effect, hence the reference to “fellow travellers”. How is the “philosophical worker” anything more than a functionary, an apparatchik, a member of the nomenklatura? Is there not a danger of instituting a philosophical totalitarianism?
Better to stratify than effect a hierarchy. Why does the philosopher, in your terminology, stand above the rest - why is he special? For Deleuze and Guattari philosophy, science and art are singularities with internal consistency:
I’ll come back to the rest…
Nietzsche, like anyone, could only dive within himself. This is the road to self-discovery that we all embark on, those of us who attempt genuine self-knowledge and wisdom. But an interesting thing happens along this journey: by understanding yourself more fully, and then by observing others, you begin to infer a certain degree of deep knowledge of other people as well, to the point where you begin to “know” them, what makes them tick, what drives them, their “inner self” so to speak - this of course is always an approximation only, and can at any point be incorrect, and is always subject to change. Once again even this extrapolated knowledge of others, and of the human condition, always reveals more about the individual himself rather than of others. But to the extent that our consciousnesses function similarly, in that their constructions and forms are so similar, we can indeed generalise knowledge from ourselves to others - imperfectly always, incompletely always, but nonetheless there is a large amount of knowledge to be gained. Nietzsche was so insightful about people individually and collectively because he was so insightful about himself - so honest with himself.
There is no contradiction here. I grant that the appearance of contradiction does exist, to those who look from outside into this realisation - but such appearances hide deeper realities and knowledge. It is important to reconcile these apparent paradoxes in order to transcend them, unite them, learn how they are the same in essence and how they enmesh and flow into and through each other, conceptually speaking. Nietzsche was quite the master of this. All knowledge is wholly personal, being that it is arrived at only by a personal means and is ultimately only knowledge of oneself - but we also gain knowledge of others through this process. Because we are all more alike than dislike.
I do not find the “all is will to power” concept model useful anymore. I have learned to subtlise or diversify my consciousness and concepts to a point where they may flow into new areas and potentials, where they may experience new visions and discoveries. What is good? There are many good things, but I fail to see how this relates to this conversation. What do we need? Once again, we each have a multitude of different needs, arising from many different sources and causes - saying it is all will to power is a cop-out and a dishonesty with oneself. Search your own needs, psychologically and emotionally and conceptually, and if you are honest about it you cannot help but learn a great deal about yourself.
An “interpretation of interpretation”? Interpreting is an act of a perceiving entity, of what we can call consciousness or identity of awareness. All things “interpret”, whether living or not, in that they react and respond to and thus in this process alter the experience of the stimuli into which they come into contact. But this likely is not the sense you mean - I take it you mean the human act of interpretation. Such process of consciousness is personal, creative and destructive, selective and expansive, real and unreal - all thought and feeling is an interpretation of a data stream, i.e. of sense-data stimuli coming from ‘without’ or ‘within’. A belief, an idea, a perspective, a concept-set or paradigm, these are all interpretations of “stuff”, things which we experience through a process of interation on a “physical” level (on a level of interactive energetic states - these can be experiences of objects via light or sound or tactile vibrations, of other people, of our thoughts or feelings).
So an interpretation of interpretation? You are asking perhaps how I personally interpret (understand) the process of human conscious interpreting? If this is the case, then my above is hopefully the answer to that question of yours. I could elaborate more if I knew more specifically what you meant by your question - or perhaps how you are relating this to Nietzsche. As his will to power is the “interpretation of interpretation” I am aware of this concept, as the be-all, end-all - that ultimate essence behind all lesser interpreting, the field or context within which all interpretation take place. While I find this concept shallow, deliberately vague and uninspired, I nonetheless encourage you to expand on what you believe to be Nietzsche’s take on this matter - perhaps your words will inspire within me fresh perspectives with which I may look at this issue. Please feel free to correct me where you see my understanding of this “interpreting of interpreting”, as to how you believe Nietzsche meant it, is incorrect. I have no issue with diverging into what “we” think, as opposed to what we think Nietzsche thought, but I am not sure if this is your intention here or not. Please define the parameters of this discussion topic of yours more concretely, if indeed they are at risk of straying too far.
I am sorry that I do not understand the question. Please elaborate.
Who besides you gives a shit? I sure as hell don’t.
[size=95]Not to assume several kinds of causality until the experiment of making do with a single one has been pushed to its utmost limit (to the point of nonsense, if I may say so)—that is a moral of method which one may not shirk today[.]
[BGE 36.][/size]
Replace causality with “good” or “need” and you may finally see it.
That’s what you say. But what do I care about you?
Translation: “I, The Last Man, interpret interpreting as”
I mean the human act first. And is your generalisation from there to “all things” not an anthropomorphism? I.e., a human interpretation? There you already have a hint as to what I mean (interpretation interpreted as metamorphosis).
Never you mind.
An alternative view on viewing than as interpretation, and an alternative view of interpretation than as an act of the will to power. But nevermind, I’m not really interested. My questions were rhetorical.
Steady, now. Steady.
I don’t think I’ve transgressed any forum laws in my last post. I’m just stupefied by the fact that he apparently still thinks I’m interested in his opinion. Or maybe it’s just his shallow, deliberately vague and uninspired will to power that drives him to it.
I think it is assumed by most that the exchange of views is the raison d’etre of a message board.
Call me crazy.
How can the ‘most’ ever be crazy, Faust…
This discussion makes me realise things: e.g., that I don’t belong to ‘most’; and that the will to power, the key concept of Nietzsche’s philosophy, is also its touchstone.
Thank you for your brief and maliciously intended words to me here - I am after all a masochist, perhaps above so many other things. Not that you care, of course 
So I will intend to show you where you are wrong, despite that you are closed to this possibility. Perhaps I do so only for myself, or for others who will here realise how you are turning Nietzsche into an Idol, whereas Nietzsche himself found idolising to be of the most offensive acts imaginable.
If you do not give a shit about my thoughts, how is it that you assume others ought to give a shit about you own?
The purpose behind my saying that the will to power concept model is no longer useful to me is twofold: first, to demonstrate that it HAS been useful in the past but that I have OUTGROWN it, and second, to show you why I say what I say about your intentions towards Nietzsche’s writings. Our understandings or readings or needs for philosophers and their works is the result of psychological impulses and inner drives, instincts and intuitions, needs and desires. You gravitate to Nietzsche because of who you are at this time and what you need in a personal way, just as we all gravitate to those things we do for our own personal reasons. There is no shame in this, it is wonderful! But my point is that when you read Nietzsche, you are not “discovering” the truths of the universe, you are not “proving” how Nietzsche is superior to or better than any other philosopher when you argue for him here - what you are doing is shouting “I need Nietzsche and I think he is the cat’s meow!” But maybe you can see how your statements here therefore do not translate beyond yourself - they are certainly not statements of anyone else but you, certainly not of Nietzsche himself.
Philosophies are ideas and, being disconnected from physical events or tangible things, describe only the convolutions and intricate workings of our own minds - each philosophy, if genuine, is a statement about the mind of the writer. This is different to a large degree from a scientific statement about some thing “out there” in the world, although of course every statement, scientific or otherwise, is to a large degree also only a statement about ourselves, our own interpreting and perspectives and needs. Yet philosophy - due to its disconnection from tangible or evidentiary results or consequences which may be seen, felt, measured, predicted and recorded - is even more so merely a statement of personal human psychology. The extent that we all think alike is the extent to which one person’s philosophy may generalise to another.
So the reason you should “give a shit” is because I am attempting to get across my method of philosophy, my intentions here are open and clear - I wish to rid you of your dogma, not because I personally think it is good for you, not because I think it is “bad” that you operate in this narrow and false way, but only because it relates to Nietzsche himself: you commit so blatant an err by idolosing Nietzsche, despite everything he wrote about idols, that I just have to write out how you are so incorrect in your own methods and intentions here. Not that they are bad for you, I am sure they are not, and not that your specific insights or thoughts on his concepts are incorrect necessarily, but that your dogma is offensive to anyone who understands the first thing of Nietzsche. Not that you care, of course - but certainly you can understand how others might wish to speak their mind when they find someone such as yourself misinterpreting so basic a tenant of Nietzschean philosophy.
I think that quote in effect expresses exactly what I have been endeavoring to say this entire time. Pushing beyond paradigms, not letting yourself be confined within narrow perspectives and methods - you ought to see what Nietzsche is saying here between the lines, in a psychological sense. It is wonderous and deep with rich meaning and rings deeply of truth, although I wonder if you are able to see it. But this is actually a near perfect example of your inability to understand what is behind Nietzsche’s words and apply it to yourself on a personal and psychological level.
Caring at the very least about what they other person is saying is quite a prerequisite for having an honest conversation with that person. You dont need to care about me personally, but you ought to at least care a bit about what I am saying - because if you do not then you are just fleeing into denial and defence. If you cannot meet my words head-on and must cop-out with ad homs and personal insults, then what does this say about the conversation we are having? What does it say about your capacity to consider the ideas I present here?
I do not wish to dive into my own ad homs. But I make the point here that if you do not care what others think, it seems strange that you converse with them at all - I thought I was the only masochist here! But further to this, if you cannot meet me in the realm of ideas on equal footing and at least with honest intent, I wonder what possibility you have for meeting yourself within you own mind, of attaining a sincere self-knowledge of who, what and how you are, in a personal and intimate way. Lacking such knowledge could certainly lead a person to idolise his own mistaken conclusions about writings such as Nietzsche’s.
I did not mean to assume interpretation to nonhuman entities, I only wished to understand in what sense you were asking your question. I am more than happy to also confine the discussion of interpreting to human consciousness.
Please explain what you mean by metamorphosis, and why you seem unquestioningly and uncategorically to consider it such a negative thing. Is not metamorphosis growth, change, discovery, becoming? Does this not then directly relate to the creative act of human conscious interpreting?
Can you not meet me squarely in the realm of ideas? Must you dodge away and hide behind malice? Why exactly can you not comment on my words here? I am doing you the honor of speaking plainly and clearly, of attempting to communicate and reconcile our ideas - I would wonder why you cannot do the same.
Viewing as it applies to interpreting? Are you implying a direct connection between “viewing” and the will to power here, or are you asking me to tell you what you think? Could you not plainly and simply just tell me yourself?
Oh, jesusgod, you two.
Just knock it off. I’m not going to say it again.