It makes sense, and if one wanted to , they could say, well yes, but whatever Nature is, and here Arcturus could come in and exemplify the aesthetic aspect of life , as it manifest’s regardless of representation.
A model independent of what we name consciousness is potentially perceptive , as if in anticipation of evolving in some sort of awareness of an unfolding. Anthropomorphism could implicate a recognition of such pattern, and the causation It’s self, could implicate intelligence.
We define intelligence in terms of imminent cognition, based on particular instances of hypothetical or , intuitive cognitive processes, and they do follow pattern recognition, by inference , the anthropomorphic projections. But that is simply a stage of material nominalism through which it had to proceed, until criticality was reached by Descartes.
Another example is the connection of the HIV virus to immunology. The variable behavior of the virus can lead to a paradigmn, that the virus for a long time was working ‘intelligently’ proceeding to transform it’s biochemical compositor resistance to any new strain of antibiotic developed.
Behavior so inferred could be act as some kind of intelligent design, converting an agent to reverse evolution, even to suggest by some clerics that effective negative synergy could be interpreted as some kind of divine lesson.
The ontological -ontic relationship could exemplify a pre-nominal process whereby the ideas of causation and determination cross paths, setting up a paradigmn as the interrelation of natural and artificial processes abound in tandem. Here, consciousness, particularly human consciousness could be termed a simulation of natural processes, to lead to conclusions which find the functional derivitive of machine and man made brain function non separable .
As a consequence, idea of modeling , apprehended as incongruent from the idea of determination qua causation, lays bare lower leveled strata subsiding it.
I think You are right at the level of separating strict determinancy from freedom through will, and I think Your quote from Nietzche supports that view.
However it may just be, that Nietzche is self inclusive in the set that looked back on him, ?
Esse est percipii.
Kierkegaard , a religious existentialist may have indicated the reverse his intention by predicting faith before aesthetics, but maybe with the same illusionary intent.
The bottom line in all this is simple , too simple, and that is the naturalistic fallacy, we must incorporate a better world into our vocabulary, one that makes sense , and not be satisfied by ’ it is what it is.
It is what it is begs it’s self, on the level of an exhaustive deity, and recognising the limits of familiarity with it. The idea generates an anthisis that begs, literally the implication, yeah, it is what it is, but it is enough for other’s , not for me.