Sons and lovers there was a time, tapestries were unbund, when later realize if sweetness were to engender the man, if it were, enclose, within himself, then, he would still miss her presence. . Narcisse laying bare, to arms, he sees another not to reflect, so wonder not its himself he loves and she, scheming to get back, him. . But know not the way only by use of disguise gently over not, dare its name, through to guidence, patiently, kill that, , to dress, the charm-so as to will to love, not love to will.
I finally understand your weird grammar, though I cannot write in it.
If loving is not the reason behind willing, then why love to will? You cannot turn the question around, because there can be no genuine loving without willing–but there can be willing without genuine loving…and that is the path to death.
Willing is only ever genuinely lovable when willing to love genuinely.
The key is the charm. It’s based on Rousseau’s defense in front of the academy. I don’t remember the date, but the accusation was using two contradictory ideas. Actually it’s a poem purely inspired not factual, but the connection between narcisse and socrates is tenuous. Narcisse compares Socrates’ forced suicide with Cato’s. There is a beautiful painting by Rousseau of the “charm”. I don’t see it as particularly charming, but its very natural. If I could (able) I could send it in a private message.
Ishthus: the will to love~love to will looks like a mirror image of each statement. If you combine the 2 love’s you get will~love~will . But to answer your comment. I don’t think what I meant to say was that you do not need genuine love. Of course we do. But what comes before? The chicken, or the egg? If we were to prioritise the two statements,(without knowing that they are connected by implication) which statement would normally be prioritised first? Will to love! Or?love to will? Relationship ways which would come first? Would I will to love somebody, before loving to will them? Will them to do what? Love us? If I say I will to love myself, that’s pretty easy to understand but that makes me a narcissist. That wouldn’t be so bad either, but how long can such a self deception go on? I meant it in that sense. Not in an either/or way. Of course you need to love to will , in order to love, BUT BEFORE you can will it, you have to know what it is. And before you can know what love is, you have to will it.(Or will to accept it.). That’s how I meant it, and if its a little confusing ,forgive me, because its not just semantics, love is not mere words.
Nevermind…
Love is a many splendored thing
Love is a many splintered thing.
Let me count the ways
.
"Whatever is done out of love, is beyond good and evil". Friedrich Niezche
Willing is only ever genuinely lovable when willing to love genuinely. That is what you get when Nietzsche actually understands golden rule love…self=Other.
Genuine loving ‘is’ the good–to go beyond it, to miss the mark, is evil…death…nothing.
Beyond the variety of our differences, every Other has self in common.
Thanks Ishthus! A very insightful remark! I looked at the archives, and foind a blog on Nietzche and Narcissism, in which the point made (2007 May 22 ILP) is, that Nietzche downplays altruism as a hypocracy, thereby the implication is a Narcissistic one. Further “love” and power" for Nietzche, are exclusive, and finally “love” for him is an erotic sublimation. This last point is an observation by Jung. I am personally going through a religious transformation myself, and am coming to belive that the type of experience Rousseau had before the academy was painful for. Him, and he defended himself by saying that the article upon which the accusations were based, was a youthful work done at the age of 18. Basically, i think that kind of defense may work for a man as young as he was, but an older man may not use that defense. The love Elizabeth Browning uses, is the type of love when referring to an unconditional love. I think the biggest mistake (sin) in my mind, and I agree with you in Your definition of “genuine” love, is precisely, the abdication of love. I thought I owed you this explanation, into the inadvertant crytpic answer I gave You. I correct myself, however, structurally, my argument can stand, even logically/linguistically I was enlightened in more ways than one, the historical dilemma nothwithstanding.Love shines through as the trump card. That’s the way I meant to show, that the picture of love, flanked by will on both sides, one figurative, and the other literal (at least in the sense people understood love to mean,evolved, and the humanistic socratic -platonic view, was not eclipsed until the advent of romanticism. Later, with the coming of the enlightenment, suffered a setback, as can be seen by Rousseau’s troubles. At one point he said "but he is just a man, but I’m not sure if he was referring to Everyman or Christ.
You mention altruism being hypocritical, but…
…but… (some sublimate sadness into poor attempts at humor…sublimation can be a good thing…) …
…the golden rule asks us NOT to be hypocritical. Given all Others are selves like one’s self, it is reasonable to be consistent in our treatment of Others/self.
For example–a self-respecting person who is able to work, would never seek financial aid (steal) from others. So, the Golden Rule would have us not offer it, much less legislate it, to anyone other than those unable to work, and for whom no one else will provide.
Weird.
Well such critique is the hight of hypercriticality. May be hypo is more understated; leaving room for further inquiry.
Then other, jumping to some vague conclusions gleaned from a distance; may be less reliable.
See Ichtus, all are really crytals , unlike spheres, if still adhering to rough edges; although the sphere is within.
As crystals, we can’t help but play it as we see it. Spheres, on the other hand introject, minimize.
Course there can be a sphere sandwiched between two crystals. Which is usually the case ; the retain some trace quality, making themselves more secure from glare through accidental focus.
Weird is a compliment in my culture 
Thanks for that clarification.
Now just thought of something.
Try think of a transparent white wall.and try to see through it.
The universe is like that color scheme. Not translateably transparent: meaning transcendence is an intentional motive
And your culture is not weird, no culture is.
Bet going on here with something I want to say. Compelled to. Trying to get hold of it.
The untractibility of the universe is appeared from how it always grows sensors of awareness to become aware of it’s self to become conscious. Without that it wouldn’t know or care to know.
The cyborg stage into we are now quickly foraging into is what way back when they used to call the mind in the machine , or the man: namely the brain actually was a machine the.ind adapted or grew into.
The cyborg a long time hence will go away in a starship far away a long time ago or hence. take the I’ll imposes soul with him: like in a bottle and he will call it time.
And there in far out space he will dispose of it and germinate and seed there; with the hope it will thrive there.
Nothing weird there.
Then the cyborg will die there for lack of an adaptable program and before dream ; lying there under the hot summer sun’s. for there may be more then one: and dream of how it is going to turn out.
It always does this it expands and Kearns to become what it is made of; deconstructs himself into myraid parts; cut off, disintegrated rather de-differentiated and then try to put himself back together again the way he remembers.
Do you use talk-to-text to write your posts? Do you think you could proofread your posts before you submit them?
I can and I will. Of course and forgive.this callousness.
Now I’m thinking poor guy doesn’t deserve this.