Really interesting debate Sauwelios ~ I’ve been contemplating it all day.
As a value in that sense yes, but understand I am seeing it as the natural state in a druidic and Buddhist manner. Or in simpler terms, what is real about us as opposed to what is transient. Is a state a value? Either way Nietzsche is doing the same thing, no?
I wonder if he had access to druidic teachings as that’s all about nature, and I am sure he would have heard of William Blake ~ there was something of a covert understanding amongst various Christian orders etc back then too. Perhaps that’s nearer than Buddhist non-duality values.
I think I got it though I cant explain it perfectly, in a sense we are talking about thoughtlessness; animals don’t cognate intellectually as we do, so they cant compute death nor any philosophical issues.
To become a bodhisattva takes many lifetimes, and the same applies to genetic dispositions, skills etc. as we have done nothing to determine the genes we are born with, then there is nothing to determine how we as individuals can arrive at Übermensch. So that itself is a value and one without basis?
don’t we all feel like that? [well, artists, philosophers etc] don’t mean to sound presumptuous etc.
I can see the comparative but in man it is wholly different to in animals, however nature ~ if we conceive of it as say a spirit, entity, consciousness or indeed a principle [and maybe that at once with mind] is more the third person perspective upon such things [that dwell in it]. I really like that idea.
A state can very well be a value, yes—namely, if it’s valued. And yes, as I understand it now, Nietzsche is doing the same thing. I’m just interested in the reasons why people would value the natural state.
As far as I know, Nietzsche did not know Blake, though I do consider Blake somewhat of a Nietzschean avant la lettre. As for druidic teachings, I’m not sure if those are compatible with his concept of “the pure, newly found, newly redeemed nature”.
Well, not lack of thought so much as lack of forethought (prudence). This is eminently compatible with Blake:
“The fox provides for himself, but God provides for the lion.” (Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, plate 9.)
The highest man, as Nietzsche conceives of him, would be a most cunning fox in particular things, but as a whole a Godless lion (“Godless” in the sense of a theistic God).
Ah, yes, reincarnation. The Buddha (Siddharta Gautama) actually believed in reincarnation without transmigration of souls; he did not believe in a soul in such a sense. So yes, that may be compatible: for Nietzsche, I think, there is only genetic and, at most, memetic reincarnation.
Yes, Nietzsche’s characterisation of the artist type, and of the philosopher as a kind of artist, is certainly compatible with that.
Well, Nietzsche did not see nature as (having) an overarching spirit or consciousness, but at most as (having) a great plurality of spirits or consciousnesses—at least one for each thing that dwells in nature, as you put it.
fascinating discussion, please bare with me a short while longer
I use it to compare things to. I don’t think ‘value’ is necessarily wrong or even the right term especially when it equates as zero. I can understand that holding values upon transient things can be found wanting, we can usually take their basis apart because they are usually rather thin.
I think druidry tries to understand divinity by how it appears in nature, if the terminology there is wrong or not the same, perhaps the true esoteric meaning is not…
Ah now I got it [again lol]. The lion doesn’t need to plan, everything is immediate to him, the fox however has to plan his strategies etc [is opposite].
Interesting. So what do we/he call the philosophical place or space the lion takes ‘instruction’ from? In druidry it is caugant the divine infinite, it exists in one space as do all informations inc the information background to the universe, and so it is as if a truth is at once conceived from that place and without process. This is nature fundamental [in druidry - I state].
Did you mean: mimetic; adjective, copying the movements, appearance, or style of something?
Genetic or ancestral line doesn’t correspond with that of the individual imho, you wouldn’t be an incarnation of someone still living, and so the line would get broken between incarnations. For me its more ‘like attracts like’ and ‘existential transmigration’ utilising caugant [as above] ones reality moves effortlessly between forms as there is no distance between incarnations.
Here we could perhaps see ‘Nietzschean nature’* as the crux of existence in life and death. hence from its* perspective death and values are not an issue nor moral problem.
Am I getting closer?
[btw I hope I have replied to all you said within the context above, rather than specifically to each part of the reply].
