And with that we’re back at my first thread (and post) on this account:
But in this thread, I have used it, following you. Well then, what do you say is the electrical value toward which lightning is discharge? Its opposite, or neutrality?
No, I just found my post long enough as it was. As for “self[-]valuing integrities get[ting] broken”, I of course see that as self-lightenings starting to lighten on different self-lightenings from the one(s) they were lightening themselves on… And my post turned out to be mostly about eros, so there you have your sexual discharge. So let’s go deeper into that now.
I didn’t say love or eros was merely a desire to possess; that was about Habsucht or the essence of masculine love, according to Nietzsche. And accordingly, the essence of feminine love is of course Hingabe (ideally) or Hingebung (actually): see Gay Science 363. Masculine love is problematic:
“[Socrates learned] that the humans in charge, the males in charge, judge nature to act unbearably toward humans, like a sea always in motion, always threatening humans and human constructs with destruction, always failing to distinguish worthy from unworthy. […This is his] insight into the male need to master feared and hated nature, to conquer nature. […W]hat he learned [ruling males] would dearly want to believe [is] that nature is not what she seems but wholly otherwise, end-directed for human benefit by caring gods who ensure that the worthy benefit and the unworthy suffer. Socrates has no quarrel with nature, but he teaches a fiction to make it appear that the male quarrel with nature misunderstands nature.” (Lampert, *The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss_, page 126.)
So-called “real men”, unlike real real men like Socrates, want to conquer nature, i.e. to possess it, to control it, to dispose of it…
Anyway, I’ve repeatedly provided this definition of eros recently:
"[A] becoming that is an internal drive to fulfill itself whose product is an internal drive to fulfill itself.” (Lampert, How Socrates Became Socrates.)
So: not a drive to fulfill others, but to fulfill itself—that being the drive itself… And it fulfills itself in producing another such drive, even as a self-lightening lightens itself of/into (an)other self-lightening(s):
“[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself […;] will to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment; […]; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power.” (Lampert, Becoming Nietzsche.)’
Why only to one’s own level?
‘Nietzsche says that Zarathustra is “condemned by the overfullness of light and power, by his solar nature, not to love.” And in the next section, nr. 8, he says “[t]he answer to such a dithyramb of solar isolation [Vereinsamung] in the light would be Ariadne…” […B]ecause Zarathustra is himself a sun, the other suns are dark to him. So the answer that is Ariadne must somehow involve another sun—or even one of the “twinkling starlets and glow-worms aloft” (ibid.)—growing brighter than Zarathustra himself; or, for that matter, multiple “twinkling starlets and glow-worms” together… […] So Ariadne, in one of her aspects at least, is the man who is even greater than this Dionysos. May we perhaps say that she is the culture, i.e. the collective of beings, which doesn’t contradict the oneness of the woman Truth?’
Yeah well, I think you’re completely foolish (not to say…), also lacking in self-knowledge (not to say…), but I’ve already said those things, so I’ll just agree to disagree.
No look, the “creation” is a discharge! (And as for “love and creation”: “The concept ‘create’ is […] a rudimentary survival from the ages of superstition” (WP 1066)…)
