Here's some from Nietzsche on that... From Beyond Good and Evil:

We never see a tree exactly and completely, with regard to its leaves, branches, colour,
shape: it is so much easier for us to dream up something approximating a tree. Even in the middle of our strangest experiences, we still do the same thing: we fabricate the greatest portion of the experience and can barely be forced not to observe any one event as its 'inventor' . All of this is to say that we are from time immemorial fundamentally-accustomed to living. Or, to put it more virtuously and hypocritically, more pleasantly in short: we are all artists much more than we realize. When holding a lively conversation, I often see the face of my conversation partner in terms of the thought that he is expressing, or that I believe I have called forth in him, with a degree of clarity and precision that goes far beyond the power of my visual faculty–the detailed movement of muscles and expression of the eye must have been added by my imagination. The person was p robably making a completely different face, or none at all.

193
Quidquid luce juil, tenebris agit:* but also the reverse. In the last analysis, what we experience in our dreams, assuming that we experience it often, is as much a part of the overall economy of our soul as anything that we 'really' experience. We are richer or poorer because of it, have one need the more or the less, and ultimately, in broad daylight and even in the brightest moments of our waking consciousness, we are a little like toddlers, led along by the habits of our dreams. Take a person who has often dreamt that he was flying, and finally, each time he dreams, feels that he possesses the power and skill to fly as if it were his prerogative and his own most enviable state of happiness : this person, who thinks that he is able to realize any kind of loop or angle with his slightest impulse, who has felt a certain divine light-headedness, an 'upwards' without tension or pressure, a 'downwards' without condescension or humiliation-without gravity!-how could a person with dream experiences and dream habits like these but find the word 'happiness' defined and coloured differently during his waking hours as well! How could he but-crave happiness differently? 'Soaring', as poets describe it, when held against this other 'flying', must seem to him too earthly, too muscular, too violent, indeed too
'heavy'. — Nietzsche

*picks you up off the ground exactly at the same time he unhooks a potion from his belt*

"Guess again" he states as a new copy of baker flips through the air, performing baker's coded drop animation, as another copy of baker is vacuumed into the stranger's inventory...

The real problem of consciousness is people treat it like a unified entity and run off into the bushes hunting for the faculty that makes consciousness possible! It's mostly a virtus dormativa activity. As Kant would say "Consciousness is possible due to the consciousness causing faculty!"

Sounds like to me you're stuck in Grammar Psychology which forces subject predicate agreement and is responsible for creating "thinghood" in terms of freezing becoming into being... hence you make non physical concepts into "things" and think they're real.

Like the word Infinity.

although we interpret the world in terms of being and unity, and much of science and and philosophy is constructed upon this illusion, the reality is that reality is in terms of a multiplicity of forces interpreting other forces in their expansion and acquisition of space outwardly. Life isn't added to matter, but rather a process of hierarchical force establishing processes. Nietzsche's concept of the "will to power" details this expansion and acquisition, the effect produced by active energy, and even in the...

Even in the inorganic world all that concerns an atom of energy is its immediate neighbourhood: distant forces balance each other. Here is the root of perspectivity, and it explains why a living organism is "egoistic" to the core. — Nietzsche, Will to Power § 637

Was editing as you were typing.

But there ya go.

Grammar Psychology trick fuckin yall...

Grammar Psychology tricking so many here. :lol:

Infinity is a word, that presents the concept of "indefinite continuation" in terms of a beings and unity. Just like we think of the numbers 1 and 2 in terms of being and unity, these things in themselves... so obviously that there is infinitely many things in themselves between these two things in themselves... as grammatical objects these things in themselves are seen as limits. People will see "infinity" as the thing in itself (only 1 infinity), or they will see that infinite meta regress between two things in themselves (Zeno's paradox [infinite infinities]).

Infinity isn't a known truth in terms of indefinite continuation in reality.

It's only possible in meta.

:lol:

When we resort to language games to nitpick... Which is more or less the dogshit Axioms tried bringing here via the immortal unreason. (Heh, noAxioms except the axiom of causa sui of grammar psychology)

An emission establishes a boundary of influence that expands and shrinks depend on the quantum of strength behind the emission.

Consequently Emissions of Light aren't movements...
When we say “light moves”, we smuggle in grammar metaphysics of being and unity: substance, identity, and temporal persistence.

All three fail.

Furthermore...

“Light moves” implies light exists before its effect, then acts, then continues to exist while acting (grammar psychology of a doer doing). But lighy has no proper time, no internal persistence, no "self" that carries across moments.

Thus saying "Light moves" is merely, as Nietzsche would detail this failure of reasoning: "the original sin of reason."

The immortal unreason that freezes becoming and multiplicity into being and unity.

I can safely assume that he and you think sound moves too.

Or perhaps you're simplifying your language to get a basic fucking point across without having to delve into the various fucking details that make it seem like light moves so you just say light moves. That Axiom wanted to jump a homie for oversimplification in language then be a complete jackass about it after I admitted poor expression.

Well guess what, I'll rub it in his face that he lies to himself through grammar psychology, especially about the manner he fashions himself in: noAxioms. The same game, I just know how to play it better...

look, we cannall nit pick the dumbest shit, obviously you dont know what you're talking about because light doesn't move.

Light moves locally — noAxioms

Blah blah blah, try coming with something worth a shit?

literally what I've been saying, Light isn't technically a speed because you don't use velocity. So it's better to not think of it in the sense of speed. Its a RELATIVE CONSTANT (Hence I mentioned that, ty)

adjust for the base speed relative to the constant — DifferentiatingEgg

perhaps the way I expressed it was poor, but what I'm saying is the light is not going at c+410 mph. That's how time dialtion works... the closer to the constant the less time you experience.

That's true, the "Speed" of light isn't actually a speed, but rather a constant.

Speeds are additive, me jogging 10 miles an hour on an airplane that's traveling 400 miles an hour makes my total speed 410 mph relative to some point on Earth.

Light on the other hand is a constant. If you flash a light while jogging 10 mph on an airplane going 400 mph, the speed the light travels is actually still just c (the constant of light) -410 mph (to adjust for the base speed relative to the constant) light is more of a structural limit than a speed.

Thanks for the interest, and I apologize for the delay in reply. All force exhibits a sort of Will and Willingness. Life, isn't added to matter... that would be preposterous. Causa Sui even... but as is the whole linguistic tradition in philosophy was practically spawn by Nietzsche's detailing of grammar psychology and how it smuggles in metaphysics into our current sciences. Which ends up making the Perceptions a Cause... which becomes a reduction to absurdity, that is of course if the conept Causa Sui is taken as something absurd.

So Nietzsche finds a way around the grammar psychology which smuggles in metaphysics into science by changing a few valuations that are actually logical.

A quantum of power is characterised by the effect it produces and the influence it resists. The adiaphoric state which would be thinkable in itself, is entirely lacking. It is essentially a will to violence and a will to defend one's self against violence. It is not self-preservation: every atom exercises its influence over the whole of existence—it is thought out of existence if one thinks this radiation of will-power away. That is why I call it a quantum of "Will to Power"; with this formula one can express the character which cannot be abstracted in thought from mechanical order, without suppressing the latter itself in thought.

I wrote a little post the other day in my discord group on N's conceptualization of life:

Life is not a substance added to matter, but "a lasting configuration of force-establishing processes." It consists in contending forces growing unequally, stabilizing themselves through resistance, command, and counter-strife. Obedience and coordination are not peaceful states, but tactical relations within an ongoing competition.

The Will to Power names the inner character of energy itself. Energy is not neutral or merely mechanical; it must be understood as having direction, valuation, and drive. Every force seeks to expand its sphere, to appropriate, to incorporate, and to shape what resists it. Where incorporation succeeds, life grows; where it fails, division and disintegration follow. Complexity and differentiation are not goals but expressions of domination, of life simplifying inward while expanding outward. Even “spirit” is only an instrument in the service of higher configurations of life.

Perspectivity arises from this same structure of force. Every center of energy has its own point of view, determined by its immediate relations of attraction and repulsion. Even the inorganic world is perspectival: distant forces cancel out, while what is nearest compels action and resistance. This is why life is “egoistic” to the core, not morally, but structurally. Interpretation is not a mental act added later; it is the continuous activity of the Will to Power itself, the primary means by which forces order, value, and master one another.
Life, will, and perspective are thus not separate domains, but different expressions of the same fundamental dynamic: force interpreting force in order to reconfigure and grow.

This does away with grammar psychology causality of forcing a subject predicate agreement, a doer always doing, which then makes the sense perceptions a cause.

Here's an example of how this will on will works...

The forces that configures a rocks properties, such as weight, size, surface texture etc etc. A 75lb chunk of sharp obsidian may resist attempts at applying enough force to pick it up, especially with unprotected hands.

The rock isn't conscious, of course, just that all energy, kinetic or stored, has the inner character of "will to power."

Perhaps someday we will. But, I don't disagree. I mean, how many "thoughts start in the Gut?" For lack of better wording... consciousness is merely the final plane of awareness. That said I believe will on will is the only causality. The inner will of energy being "the will to power."

Christianity fails because at it's foundation it is an attack on the instincts and the passions fundamental to life.

In BoT §9 Nietzsche contrasts the Aryan Prometheus myth with the Semitic Fall. For the Greeks, man’s crime (Prometheus stealing fire) is a proud, tragic transgression—culture born through bold defiance of the gods. By contrast, the Semitic Fall locates the origin of evil not in man’s daring but in woman’s seduction: curiosity, wantonness, beguilement. Sin is feminized; woman is cast as corrupter. Here Nietzsche sees the beginning of the Judeo-Christian attack on the Dionysian: noble crime transformed into moralized sin, creative defiance replaced by narratives of female weakness and corruption.

This, for Nietzsche, is the root of how morality—especially through Socratism, Platonism, and the Judeo-Christian myth—works to kill off the Dionysian, the very “feminine” nature of life.

Here's an interesting quote

"I am convinced of the phenomenalism of the inner world also: everything that reaches our consciousness is utterly and completely adjusted, simplified, schematised, interpreted, the actual process of inner "perception," the relation of causes between thoughts, feelings, desires, between subject and object, is absolutely concealed from us, and may be purely imaginary. This "inner world of appearance" is treated with precisely the same forms and procedures as the "outer" world. We never come across a single "fact": pleasure and pain are more recently evolved intellectual phenomena....

Causality evades us; to assume the existence of an immediate causal relation between thoughts, as Logic does, is the result of the coarsest and most clumsy observation. There are all sorts of passions that may intervene between two thoughts: but the interaction is too rapid—that is why we fail to recognise them, that is why we actually deny their existence....

"Thinking," as the epistemologists understand it, never takes place at all: it is an absolutely gratuitous fabrication, arrived at by selecting one element from the process and by eliminating all the rest—an artificial adjustment for the purpose of the understanding....

The "mind," something that thinks: at times, even, "the mind absolute and pure"—this concept is an evolved and second result of false introspection, which believes in "thinking": in the first place an act is imagined here which does not really occur at all, i.e. "thinking"; and, secondly, a subject-substratum is imagined in which every process of this thinking has its origin, and nothing else—that is to say, both the action and the agent are fanciful."

Consequently not Epiphenomenalism

aren't there a whole number proceeding physiological sensations that occur prior to thought. The final phenomena appears before our consciousness, and so we see only the path of the tips the ice bergs make and call that "the causal chain," these tips of the ice bergs of thought.

Is it not an illusion to regard that which enters consciousness as will-power, as a cause? Are not all conscious phenomena only final phenomena—the lost links in a chain, but apparently conditioning one another in their sequence within the plane of consciousness?

Platonism, mostly. The case against suicide is that one simply doesn't do it out of whatever reasoning, the case for it is any case that goes for suicide. People arrive at the same conclusions for very different reasons all the time.

Invoking the name of Darwin as if anything intelligent, is what you call "Social Darwinism."

We can tell your Christian sentiments from your response to LuckyR. Doubling down on the notion above are we?

Why must people take seriously the brain affliction of dead web spinners...? :roll:

infinity is a useful lie.

Even in the inorganic world all that concerns an atom of energy is its immediate neighbourhood: distant forces balance each other. Here is the root of perspectivity, and it explains why a living organism is "egoistic" to the core. — Nietzsche

"YOU" is a falsification in unity forced through the psychology of grammar which is irreducibly Platonic. What you is:

Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally....

The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to manifest power; or the application and exercise of power as a creative instinct, etc. Physicists cannot get rid of the "actio in distans" in their principles; any more than they can a repelling force (or an attracting one). There is no help for it, all movements, all "appearances," all "laws" must be understood as symptoms of an inner phenomenon, and the analogy of man must be used for this purpose. It is possible to trace all the instincts of an animal to the will to power; as also all the functions of organic life to this one source. — Nietzsche

Spitting some :fire: there, Sir.

There is no part of "The World" that exists independently to "You", — bizso09

Sorry homie, the outer world isn't the work of our organs. The world exists independently of you.

I already covered that case before, how this would be impossible, simply via the introduction of an encapsulating world which would again relate back everything to "You". — bizso09

The error of imaginary causes... as in the world doesn't work like that so your "proof" is good for an imaginary world that does work like that...

Oh yeah... the fable of the True and Apparent world...

they're both fiction... all he's done is posit the same ole same ole "True world vs Apparent world." Consequently Nietzsche details how The True and Apparent worlds eventually became fable in Twilight of the Idols... in a six step process...

6. We have suppressed the true world: what world survives? the apparent world perhaps?... Certainly not! In abolishing the true world we have also abolished the world of appearance! — Nietzsche, Twilight of Idols

You're now just left with the world as is.

@bizso09 unfortunately you're just arguing Socrates and Plato. Which has aready been exposed and done away with in contemporary philosophy.

Foucault: Power Without Sovereignty
Foucault challenges the idea that power is only held by institutions and applied through law. Power is diffuse, relational and productive. It acts through norms, language and identity. One does not escape power by avoiding the state. Power shapes how we see and behave.

Foucault writes: “[Power] is produced from one moment to the next, at every point, or rather in every relation from one point to another. Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” — Moliere

Nietzsche's idea, not Foucault's.

The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to manifest power; or the application and exercise of power as a creative instinct, etc. Physicists cannot get rid of the "actio in distans" in their principles; any more than they can a repelling force (or an attracting one). There is no help for it, all movements, all "appearances," all "laws" must be understood as symptoms of an inner phenomenon, and the analogy of man must be used for this purpose. It is possible to trace all the instincts of an animal to the will to power; as also all the functions of organic life to this one source....

Even in the inorganic world all that concerns an atom of energy is its immediate neighbourhood: distant forces balance each other. Here is the root of perspectivity, and it explains why a living organism is "egoistic" to the core...

The bond between the inorganic and the organic world must lie in the repelling power exercised by every atom of energy. "Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally. To what extent does counter-strife exist even in obedience? Individual power is by no means surrendered through it. In the same way, there exists in the act of commanding, an acknowledgment of the fact that the absolute power of the adversary has not been overcome, absorbed, or dissipated. "Obedience," and "command," are forms of the game of war...

There are no laws: every power draws its last consequence at every moment... — Nietzsche

And so so so many more...

But as to the democratic institution of power... well...

"Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally.

Even still...
I feel like Nietzsche's approach to reconciliation, "the bridge to one's love," that always remains open in the noble TYPE's heart, and other details as well can perhaps really help your essay out in depth and nuance.

People shy away from Nietzsche, I get it, there are a lot of palefoil takes on Nietzsche that even a name drop association with can curdle someone's milk... But there is an abundance in Nietzsche that is so untapped in discussions like these. Even in a democratic setting. The thing is there are always a range of types. With Nietzsche, perhaps the concept of democracy can be transfigured in such a way that it serves the same purpose of democracy while still respecting the rank order and pathos of distance.

Democracy and Nietzsche bridge in several areas, like respecting the fact that a fundamental condition of life is perspective.

The world merely is. Whether it's this or that is your own testimony about the world. Consequently, people's perspective isn't the world.

There is no case... do it if you can't handle life. Better for those of us who can. Definitely don't try passing on such hereditary exhaustion.

Because they're trapped in platonic ideals. (A bit of a reduction but its a tldr statement).

I don’t really think those things of you, I was just grasping at straw, and making up fiction to place you outside of categories to pretend like you were a sinner.

I was like... damn, I know over 100% of the trans population?

Oh no, however are they going to handle a Real ID?... the same fucking way you do. Lol by going to the DMV...

The real question is ...
How are you going to survive the future knowing Trans wont ever go away?

Depends on what it is you're talking about. Like suppose I start just lambasting you with how much of a failure you are to fit my category of "man"?

Could you function outside of the emasculation of Christianity?

Since it rules over your every impulse...? If you can make externalized values "woman"ize you through Christianity... Then why cant a man simply adhere to internal values to emasculate themselves?

See how easy it is to turn the same style of bs talk around on you? For not fitting categories?

What's to stop any man from following a woman into a bathroom and raping her? Your chat about it is bullshit because you try to bring up issues with platonic categories for man and woman and are like.... "YOU CANT BE TRANS BECAUSE ONLY 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST FUCK THEM!"

The Left and Right are both a style ideological crisis for those unfortunates who cannot think and govern for themselves.

And “human” is a category, an ideal, just as much as “trans” is. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, all language is irreducibly platonic. The point is to not project upon them the notion of "man as such" or "woman as such." That's just a clumsy handling, you're not even treating them as a human at that point, rather more of an attack on your ideals.

Ps: When I say Heraclitus fell to the seduction of the of Eleatics, I'm talking about his stance on material monism. So using his material monism as a defense is just kinda silly.

He thought everything was in flux, but believed in material monism due to the seduction of grammar which forces the psychology of unity in definitions.

How do we identify a “thing” — Fire Ologist

Thinghood came through categorization via language and grammar which differentiates through definitions. Trans is an adjective that modifies a noun.

Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” — Fire Ologist

waves a gesturing hand towards the two bathrooms. "Overthere."

It's quite simple, you treat them by your mutual term, human. That you let platonic categories scew with your thinking just shows you dont really give a shit about the person but are more seduced into projecting your own platonic concepts upon them.

But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. — Fire Ologist

"Blah blah blah, No fux for flux." Since being is always moving it's becoming. Regardless of if you wanna be like "no he said BEING MOVES!" lol aight homie...

You didn't say a damn thing other than Heraclitus doesn't believe in a static being of permanence... which is Being... so more or less you said he does and doesn't believe in Being. Absurd.


Added:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. — Nietzsche. TLNMS

You forgot to use the word “is”. — Fire Ologist

Left out quite a few words "This whole thread is filled with people seduced by grammar." ...

Never said don't use grammar, just be aware of how using an irreducibly platonic tool forces a style of psychology upon the person, a style that is exceptionally seductive. Even Heraclitus fell to the seduction of grammar, and he was an opponent of BEING! That's to say all grammar forces "being" upon the experiences of "becoming" in order to discuss a "thing."

First and foremost humans are animals. Causa sui categories came from the metaphysics of language...

If someone doesn't fit another person's category and they say that someone is wrong... well. That's just the person projecting their platonic idealism. Projecting their unreality upon reality. Projecting their "True World."

Seduction of Grammar... this whole thread...

"Man" and "Woman" are merely a category of specific traits that not all "men" and "women" share.

"Man" and "Woman" are Platonic concepts... Man is not men and Woman is not women, it’s a generic representation of men and women. In Christianity/Platonism, the generic representation is more real than the many actual things it represents. And it’s “supposed to” represent all of them… even when it doesn’t… because it can’t actually do that.

But what this means to them is that, when it doesn’t, the actual thing is “should” make itself conform to the representation—whatever doesn’t do so is a “bad thing,” a sinner.

It's kinda retarded to think everyone fits a single category as the platonic representation...

How a person is, depends on the VALUES they accept and express. Which has nothing to do with anyone except the valuator.

It's quite simply they're trick fucked by the grammar of the language they use that forces "BEING" in a world of "BECOMING." Being, and thus The True Form are empty fictions. Hence you have YOUR way, and I have MY way, but as to THE way, it does not exist.

Oh, do I sense you've delved into a little Deleuze?

Assume a morning walk for a schizophrenic, for example — Outlander

Say a man has character, he has a typical experience which always recurrs, because being is an empty fiction.

And it really is quite that simple.

Normal: A typical experience.