The guy who wrotte the preface for my edition of The Antichrist is smart.

The money quote:

“Whoever wants to live begining with (a partir de) Nietzsche will have to nibble at the bone of The Antichrist; and, also, swallow it (yes, yes CN, I see the irony). Not only in the negative, which is easy, but also in the positive. Not only in the no, but also in the hidden yes that is enclosed within.

Indeed, this is the true task of anybody who considers themselves involved in a rally race in Nietzsche’s team. The no is easy, it’s explicit. But why is that no there? What is the point of it? Why expend, not only so much intellect and effort, but raw passion that touches on hyperbole, on this inmense negative?

CN will have you believe that the answer is “to finally die.” How buddhist of him!

The real answer is… Well, let’s just say that there is a yes involved; and its weight can be guessed by the weight of the no.

Yes, the money issue that …was one of a illusion of credit, not money. Nibbling indeed. You know Nietzsche read the satyricon. They play on its theme alot in the story… two immoralist art students on their cynic travels through a dystopian city of Croton, with their school teacher who pretended to be a rich man in africa, willing to put anyone in his will willing to help him. His farce gave him a line of eager credit by anyone, with that flaunting of a fake will. Layer on in the story, hes still pulling it off, on a merchant shipping expefition funded by them. He dies, and they open the will. It dictates the only ones who could inherit from him had to complete one last act… in a fit of dionysian fever had to rip his body apart and eat him for they were the ones responsible for sending him to hell, and therefor it was only fitting!

You should watch the Fellini complete version of The Satyricon to find out how it ended.

I dont think Nietzsche quite got the idoltry and sarcasm of this satire on the dionysian rite, but certainly picked up on the r,foolish, disturbed reasoning as his heirs pondered the good and evil of the action custom by custom of peoples around the world.

I dont do credit.

I guess that was one of Nietzsche’s skills… Throwing psychoanalysts (I mean that as in people that analyse psychologically, not necessarily the tradition of the same name) off.

It’s getting monothematic, you focusing only on certain psychological archetypes. Can you see the archetype I am moving into?

Nietzsche’s answer is will to power, to move the ethical mandate to the level of life/existence by universalizing the will to power principle and then to embody it as an ethical possibility for man via the eternal return.

I think that’s a shit answer. My answer is the notion of futurity, which requires no metaphysical postulation, no infinity, and no meaning of/for death (to his credit, neither did Nietzsche, to this last point - but many of his “followers” lack this sort of fortitude and clarity of mind).

No. Will to power is not the “yes.” Will to power is a scientific description if anything.

Fascinating. Your post reminded me of this article: elsewhere.org/pomo/

In fact your whole style reminds me of it… You know… futurity, ethical mandates, infinity, etc…

Mo… I was reading that link, thinking ‘this is exactly why I am opposed to fucking academics pretending to be philosophers… why the fuck are these cunts writing this garbage in the first place’ and then was scratching my head as to why it was so short, if it was a prelude to a longer essay, and looked at the bottom for a link… then fuck. Funny.

How does T.G.W.W.T.P.F.M.E.O.T.A.I.S. translate?

Yea, it’s pretty amazing really. I’ve spent some time staring at it, and it almost seems meaningful.

Never even read Lyotard… probably wont… everytime you generate a new one, his name pops up.

Thanks, pez–for some reason I didn’t relate it to the first line of your OP.

Mo, Your link reminds me of the way a lot of people write around here–LOL–thanks.

Actually, that has nothing at all to do with anything I’ve said.

Clearly you’ve misunderstood. Again.


If you actually read my last post, I said: the style, not the substance.

I agree with Mo. It’s like mathematicians, they also write in a very annoying style. Ridiculous, I don’t understand it and it’s all alike.

Fine craftsmanship is often mistaken for noise.

Never once have I heard of people mistaking a finely made chair in a antiques store for noise.

Yeah, but I bet you scoffed at the engravings and said they just looked like stupid squibbles.