>"I HATE THAT SAVIOR! He ruins my nihilist schemes! He helps the weak and sickly!"
Interesting post Doctor.
This has to be one of your more clever disguises, but anyone with even an inkling of a tragic sensibility could discern the resentment behind your mask miles away. For one thing, Nietzsche loved the savior. He sings his praises. His issue was with the recuperation of Christ after his death, and the negative and reactive nihilisms this lead to. If anyone's to blame for those its Saint Paul and his shameless falsifications about the resurrection which solidified a moralistic structure of infinite debt by turning resentment into bad conscience through internalization of guilt over the saviors death.
First god puts his own son to death for the love of us, making Jesus' death cosmopolitan; a blessing for everyone. Then as Jesus dies a new god is created, one who only asks that we love him as he loves us, that we become reactive in order to avoid hate. Finally, Paul creates the lie that Jesus died for our sins. Thereby forcing us to pay interest on a debt God imposed upon us through the creation of sin which he then repaid to himself for us. These actions planted the seeds of the aforementioned internalized guilt which we pay interest on through self accusation of sin, and guilt over the death of the savior for our sinfulness. A system which additionally grants its adherents a justified hatred for anyone who would deny the blessing granted us by Christ's death. Love as hatred, love of reactive life. Jesus himself was more like a Buddha. He denied the existence of sin. He was a man who brought glad tidings, promoted the refusal of war. A revelation that we are to build Gods kingdom here on earth, and he accepted a death on that cross as proof of his doctrine. For another thing, this passive Nihilism that Jesus espoused is what keeps people sick and weak, trapped in the dialectic and doomed to become reactive.
Wow, you really showed Egghead. Thanks for taking point on this one buddy.
Fastest hedgehog my ass. Where were you two minutes ago before I'd done all the work? you show up and thank me? Have nothing to say about the myth of narcissus? Ariadne nor Dionysus? Care to tell us how one changes the element from which value derives? Honestly, why are you bothering to make an appearance in this thread Sonic? From the way you're posting its clear you've never even read Nietzsche.
I was probably never really a "christian" at any point in my life since I never really felt guilty over Jesus offing himself over my sins
That actually makes you more Christ like than someone who would
Christ is not incompatible with Nihilism.
No, I think...
>>118 Out of the way Amy.
>>83 Sorry Shadow, but Christ is an ass. Hell, the real itself is an Asses idea!. The Dionysian yes knows how to say no. To affirm is to create, not to bear, put up with or accept. The world should be formed in your image by your reason, your will and your love. When the legislator takes the place of the scholar creation takes the place of knowledge itself.
>*catches you* you'll be alright
Six months of preparation, some help from your friend Knuckles, all this bluster and yet all you've managed to do is give a new sense and value to "Fastest hedgehog my Ass??"
The concept of genealogy is based on a differential element. This element is a critique of the value of values plus a positive element of creation. Genealogy, or history, then is the series of forces which posess an object. A change of sense with each new possession. Interpretation is the creative and evaluative instance in this process. Any force can only appropriate an object first by wearing the mask of what is already in possession of it. Another way of thinking of this is it being apprehensible only to those with a certain sensibility, or rather things are only apprehensible through ones own sensibilities. This is why we learn best by articulating something new through and against habitual paths we’ve already established. Translating it into a language of our own sensibility. This means that for a philosopher to wield critique they must appear to be what came before. An ascetic priest for example.
Sense is of course always related to the force which takes possession of it. Just like sight, smell, and hearing are related to the inputs pressed upon us that force us to think. Value in interpretation is the hierarchy of forces expressed in it history is the series of forces that had possession.
I think Batailles essay Deviations of Nature can help illustrate this series of forces as they relate to masks and sensibility. In the Essay Batailles interest is in relating monsters as deviation to the common measure as Platonic ideal. To do this he utilizes the composite images of photographer Galton. Through repeatedly exposing a piece of film to over 400 faces we receive a result giving us an average face. Similarly exposure to hundreds of pebbles could yield nothing other than a sphere. Each individual in the series monstrously deviates from the average result of the series, but they comprise in conjunction the plurality from which this deviation from the illusory average can be measured. Monstrosity “Among all things that can be contemplated under the concavity of the heavens, nothing is seen that arouses the human spirit more…” because it noticeably calls upon the deviation in a way that unmasks the illusion of recognition as an outlier that takes possession in a series of silent and forgotten impressions.
“‘’Man inhabits the dark side of the Earth of which he only understands the becoming reactive which permeates and constitutes it.’’” So, no, people would become reactive even without Jesus Shadow. The dialectician is a slave asserting themselves as master, by declaring themselves as good and to not be like them, to not hold their values, is evil. Thus separating people from what they could otherwise do. Though to get anywhere we’ll need to clarify some things about the three stages of nihilism you mentioned.
First we have ‘’Negative Nihilism’’ which manifests as resentiment. the accusatory “it's your fault” from which we enter into the second stage, ‘’Bad Conscience’’ where aggression is turned inward against the self. Having heard enough accusation we accept it and declare that it is “my fault, my sin.’’
The third stage ‘’Passive Nihilism’’ we kill god, take his throne and now seek to maintain, preserve that power and accept the status quo, but in so doing have broken our alliance with the negative power, the will to nothingness the active destructive power which develops the inverted image of all the previous steps and brings them to triumph over active forces.
The will to nothingness now finds a new ally in the man who wishes to perish. The criminal that would defy the norm. A strong spirit that would rather be annihilated than to continue with things the way they now stand. A desire for destruction which must turn creative. The eternal return.
How exactly does the transmutation take place place giving “the critique of new values a completed form.”? How does the most intense hatred for life turn into a love for it?
The secret lies with the divine couple Ariadne and Dionysus. The wedding ring and the wedding mirror. Ariadne is the wedding ring, the eternal return of the cycle of becoming, of transmutation, the feminine spirit of revenge which once freed from the masculine power of control becomes a loving one. Dionysus is the wedding mirror awaiting a soul that can admire itself, but unlike narcissus who is only capable of admiring his own reflection, Ariadne is capable of reflecting in the fact that she is admiring herself, her being. This is why she cannot solve the labyrinth until she gives up on Theseus. For Dionysus is the labyrinth, herself, her masked and hidden double and second affirmation as her reflected being traversing the thread through the labyrinth of her becoming.
‘’Ariadne sings “I bend and twist myself, tormented by all the eternal martyrs, struck by you, the most cruel hunter,..., the god unknown, speak, finally, you who hide behind the lightning? Unknown! Speak! What do you want…? O come back my unknown god! My pain! My last happiness!”’’
The will to power is suffering and agony that afflicts our sensibilities to drive us to reaction. Only finding sense and value which joyously affirm this can return. Ariadne’s pain is her happiness, her suffering is that of love. That which can will its own downfall is the feminine power of revenge, released from the control of the masculine power, to have a single correct set of values, to maintain, to preserve; it is free to give and to love and to affirm unconditionally.
‘’Let the flash of a star glitter in your love! Let your hope be: May I bear the overman’’
ZI of old and young women p. 92
Begone false fire dog. You speak not from the belly of the earth but skirt around the surface spewing smoke and pollution.
that's what she said
darn right knuckles