Spiritual reflections on attachment, mind, ego, and the Good

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 20th, 2019, 9:58 am 

OK I get it now.
You don't live your own life over and over; you live some random other life each time around.
But, again: If you can't do anything about it, what's the point of knowing about it?
At least, with regular transmigration, you get promotions for good behaviour, and eventually get off the treadmill.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby xma on March 20th, 2019, 11:44 am 

Serpent » March 20th, 2019, 7:58 am wrote:But, again: If you can't do anything about it, what's the point of knowing about it?
treadmill.


Well, we can assume that the lives of all the people around you are your future lives, as well as the rest of humanity. accordingly, it is logical to think how to find a balance between own interests and the surrounding reality.


Serpent » March 20th, 2019, 7:58 am wrote:At least, with regular transmigration, you get promotions for good behaviour, and eventually get off the treadmill.


not, it is impossible to get off the treadmill - but knowing that you can spread a straw, you can at least think about it .. and it would be better - if all of humanity thought about it: D
xma
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Feb 2014


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 20th, 2019, 12:43 pm 

xma » March 20th, 2019, 10:44 am wrote:[But, again: If you can't do anything about it, what's the point of knowing about it?]

Well, we can assume that the lives of all the people around you are your future lives, as well as the rest of humanity.

I got that when I read the essay, after which I edited my post. Not fast enough.

So then:
Where do you get the idea that you will live other lives, not your own, over and over?
Where do you get the idea that there is some kind of pool of souls and whichever one is netted goes into the next baby?
Indeed, how does the putative Fisher even tell where one soul ends and another begins? (It gets crowded in there after 7B - and
where did all the new ones come from?)
For that matter, what makes you so sure it's a human body you get every time around?
There are an awful lot of unfounded assumptions in this theory.

accordingly, it is logical to think how to find a balance between own interests and the surrounding reality.

If all you're doing is reliving somebody's previous life, you have to repeat all of his crimes and mistakes, instead of your own.

not, it is impossible to get off the treadmill - but knowing that you can spread a straw, you can at least think about it .. and it would be better - if all of humanity thought about it: D

Isn't this just a cumbersome - not to say implausible - version of Rawls' veil of ignorance?
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115359424
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on March 20th, 2019, 2:08 pm 

If we can't live properly now what's the point of other lives?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 24th, 2019, 10:31 am 

I did vaguely wonder where it went, but would hardly call that intense.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-mind/The-soul-and-personal-identity
xma -- I declare that the number of different variations of the universal being 1is limited, since limited to the number of such distinguishable2 through the PC .. (according to the rules of combinatorics).

and once it is limited, then in time3 all possible variants of universal existence 4will be selected,5 and then there will be nothing left for them - except to be repeated, and so forever ..

Q1: What is a universal being?
Q2: What is distinguishable from what?
Q3: How long?
Q4: Does this include all life forms on all habitable planets throughout all the galaxies?
Q5: What is the means of selection and what prevents it selecting the same +/-700 trillion life-forms over and over again?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 24th, 2019, 11:11 am 

I'm curious as to how they imagine it would work.
First, there is a presumption of finite events in infinite time - why suppose either?
Then there is the pathetic underestimation of the size of the universe - the sheer number of things that can potentially be recombined.

But I'm actually more curious - like Seagull - as to why this should be contemplated at all.
Ever materialist and utilitarian, me:
What's it good for?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby BadgerJelly on March 24th, 2019, 1:49 pm 

xma » March 20th, 2019, 11:44 pm wrote:
Serpent » March 20th, 2019, 7:58 am wrote:But, again: If you can't do anything about it, what's the point of knowing about it?
treadmill.


Well, we can assume that the lives of all the people around you are your future lives, as well as the rest of humanity. accordingly, it is logical to think how to find a balance between own interests and the surrounding reality.


Serpent » March 20th, 2019, 7:58 am wrote:At least, with regular transmigration, you get promotions for good behaviour, and eventually get off the treadmill.


not, it is impossible to get off the treadmill - but knowing that you can spread a straw, you can at least think about it .. and it would be better - if all of humanity thought about it: D


This is the point of it. It is a hypothetical to contemplate and consider the views of others. Perspective is useful, therefore being actively conscious of other’s perspectives seems like a pretty decent mental exercise to me.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 24th, 2019, 2:21 pm 

Is there not a less - comprehensive - method of achieving that end?
Can we not consider other people's POV without involving eternity, all the other sentient beings that have ever lived or will live, making all these vast assumptions, where one aspect the universe is infinite while another is finite? Seems like we'd be spending a far greater portion of the mental exercise trying to come to grips with the hypothetical problem than solving it.

How about something pithy and folksy, like:
"Walk a mile in his shoes."
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Brent696 on March 24th, 2019, 3:24 pm 

Where is Shirley Maclaine when you need her, I'm feeling out on a limb here.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
TheVat liked this post


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby xma on March 26th, 2019, 9:40 am 

Serpent » March 24th, 2019, 8:31 am wrote:Q4: Does this include all life forms on all habitable planets throughout all the galaxies?

yes

Serpent » March 24th, 2019, 8:31 am wrote:Q5: What is the means of selection and what prevents it selecting the same +/-700 trillion life-forms over and over again?

then you need a transition point in complete cyclicity, but this is impossible .. (but it is not so easy to prove this formally, so you can simply assume that the very fact of such a development is insignificant),

but even if they do not agree with this, in any case, the very understanding that there is a possibility that you will have to live forever not only your lives but also the skins of other people (including those who live now) can already cast on certain thoughts about what is possible in the interest of all people to have a little more order on it on the planet ..


you understand the basic idea - now it is not possible to investigate something and process data outside the PC .. but the PC itself allows you to give a person no more than a limited amount of data (even if the person would live forever) ...

those. if a person explored the universe through the PC, without being limited by time - then he would not be able to distinguish between a more limited set of different universes (/ civilizations / people and their possible lives) .. do you understand this or not?

well i There is a limited number of books - each page in which is unique, just because the number of possible permutations of letters on a page is limited to a finite number ..

similarly with video and images, and with music every second in which is unique ..

this is pure combinatorics (section of discrete mathematics), for example, a simplified example of arrangements with repetitions of 4 elements a, b, c, d with 2 is 4 ^ 2 = 16, these placements are as follows:
aa, ab, ac, ad, ba, bb, bc, bd, ca, cb, cc, cd, da, db, dc, dd.

Now imagine that there are 26 letters (conditionally), and letters on page 1800, we get 26 ^ 1800 different pages with text there .. you can also calculate the same with pixels in the image ..
xma
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Feb 2014


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby TheVat on March 26th, 2019, 9:54 am 

Sort of a John Rawls ethics in all this, eh?
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 26th, 2019, 4:08 pm 

I tried that gambit, but it seems, in order to be more decent to one's fellow man, it is necessary also to relive every instance of the entire gamut of extraterrestrial existence, on 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of which we, in our present guise, have 0 influence.
Seems like an unnecessarily long pier for short dive.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby BadgerJelly on March 27th, 2019, 3:07 am 

Serpent » March 27th, 2019, 1:12 pm wrote:I have no idea what you just said, or how it was a response to my post.
Perhaps I am doomed to live in ignorance.


Agreed! Seems to have made the error of assuming what has been written makes sense to everyone else as much as themselves.

Xma -

Care to speak more plainly and carefully? Analogies are only useful if the basic idea and thougth is already reasonably explicit to those you’re trying to talk with.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby BadgerJelly on March 29th, 2019, 4:19 am 

Note: The Muse is upon me today so apologies if this goes a little off the rails for some of you. I’m trying to be open and express what I think as best I can - when I do this I sadly have to rely on some charity of interpretation not blank dismissal simply because it is possible to take my words as viscious weapons meant only to degrade and harm your sensibililties ;)

I can be patient and I can be EXTREMELY impatient too! ;) I’m sure you’ve seen both.

Anyway, I do remember thinking about Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence” some time ago and initially struggling with the point of it. It is all well and good to say “walk a mile in his shoes” blithely and then moving on. This, if you remember BIV, ties into what I call the real use of the hypothetical?

What both the OP and Nietzsche reveal, purposely or not, is the approach to the “self” as “other”. I’ve been of the mind for a long time that what I see in others is due to how I view myself and what I can and could do; my capacities and capabilities. This is not to wrap oneself in a sense of solipsism!

The thing is about “walk a mile in his shoes” it is a fact that we DO this yet distance ourselves from it. All the lives lived adn to be lived ae part of my comprehension in some sense or another. I am me because I am able to extend myself into-the-world - not wanting to sound too much like Heidegger here!

Think about how you act when you read or see something you dislike, be it an opinion expressed, an act of violence or whatever else gets the blood boiling. To understand that that person IS YOU is the last thing you want, but it IS YOU ... and I immediately think you’ll be inclined to protest here with thoughts such as “I’d never do that!” or worse still “I’m incapable of doing that! Of course, like you all I too see something I dislike and react in the same manner, yet afterwards I am capable of looking at this as a repulsion toward my own being not some “other”.

Another caveat here would be to mention “relativism” alongside “solipsism”. My repsonse is the same. The point is to address the hypothetical as a hypothetical NOT as a reality (whatever that means!). I am, and I’m NOT, saying that all perspectives are relative. If you view someone acting in a manner you dislike you don’t see it from any other perspective than your own, you see yourself through their acts not through their eyes.

Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence” is also meant as you having to live your life our over and over and over again. By this he meant, in part, that if you were to pick one book or one movie to use for the rest of your life what would it be? Now view your actual life as this “book” or “movie”. Basically make or life worthy of living, fill it to the brim and explore all facets you can. The OP has taken this on with a sense of empathy and contemplation of “other” not merely “like you” but “AS you”. Those whose adherance of some pure, and fallacious, rationality will aboid the moral premise set before them and dismiss the hypothetical as “unrealistic” missing the entire point of the investigation into the sense of “self”.

In relation to other posts/threads

You may see now why I do see something of a sense of common ground in the apparent rantings of people like Nick_A ? I don’t believe they are “other” to me anymore than I believe I am “other” to them. Dislike of other views comes about due to not beign able to approach their views as your own and there is little hope of approaching their views as your own if you, and you will, dislike them - hence the conundrum of depreciating yourself for the sake of yourself ... it’s frankly the most bizarre and important discovery of my life and I cannot MAKE someone willingly cause themselves massive personal upheaval just to back up my position. I don’t actually know how it is possible anymore than it is possible to persuade someone that cutting off their own ar would be a useful act.

From this I would say I have a pretty reasonable appropriation of what “religious” thought is trying to express. The benefit of the hypothetical is as a “religious” narrative to be played with relatively safely rather than me saying “Stop eating for 30 days, isolate yourself, and contemplate nothing else other than your own hubris and pointless existence!” When you’re broken down and torn apart, when you’ve been locked in our Room 101, then you’ll attach what you experience to the most apparent narrative you can - for many this is religious in nature due to education and upbringing. To add the experience that manifests from this is NOT one that can be framed rationally and it is precisely the sense of the intuitive being, the rational contemplation, that fails at the height of emotional stimulation.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on March 29th, 2019, 6:54 am 

I don’t believe they are “other” to me anymore than I believe I am “other” to them.


If you're very self-centred then others will always be 'other' to you, probably to be used and abused.

If one isn't self-centred the the other is you.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby BadgerJelly on March 29th, 2019, 7:31 am 

charon » March 29th, 2019, 6:54 pm wrote:
I don’t believe they are “other” to me anymore than I believe I am “other” to them.


If you're very self-centred then others will always be 'other' to you, probably to be used and abused.

If one isn't self-centred the the other is you.


Same differences. Both extreme ends lead to the same logical conclusions. If I am utterly selffish and only care about myself then I must optimise my time around others and, if smart enough, will realise that treating people well and looking out for them is advantageous for my own selfish existence. OR if I’m utterly selfless then I come to understand that sacrificing myself for the betterment of others only works optimally if I sustain myself long enough to provide a long lasting source of strength for others, thus I will have to take care of myself first in order to be of use to others.

Basically, to be utterly selfish means you resort to selflessness, and being utterly selfless means you resort to selfish.

From what I can tell Nietzsche’s encapsulated this in “Beyond Good and Evil” and may just as well have framed it as Beyond Selfishness and Selflessness.

I imagine Kierkegaard’s “Either Or” deals with this problem of dichotomy and morals too, in part(?), but I’ve not gotten hold of a copy yet.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on March 29th, 2019, 7:53 am 

Badger -

Same differences


No, not at all, they're completely different. The self-centred person utilises everything around them. Things, people and nature exist only for their advantage, their utility. That's not love, that's not civilised behaviour.

The unselfish person doesn't have that. His behaviour is totally different, which is friendship, love, compassion, mercy. Then there's real generosity, cooperation, and so on.

It's not two ends of a sliding scale, they're two entirely different and unrelated things.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on March 29th, 2019, 9:06 am 

charon » March 20th, 2019, 2:08 pm wrote:If we can't live properly now what's the point of other lives?


There is no point if you don't remember your life. If Plato was right and we live in imagination attached to the shadows of the wall in Plato's cave, nothing can change. Everything repeats leading to eternal recurrence.

The reason for eternal recurrence begins with a concept of time which enbles it. But for now the conscious potential as the means to escape eternal recurrence was given in the 1993 movie "Groundhog Day." Phil Connors was a self centered obnoxious weatherman assigned to cover festivities for Groundhog Day. He of course looked down on it.

For some reason Groundhog Day repeated again and again. The only thing that could change was his conscious experience of the day. Gradually he became less attached to events or feel any reason to condemn them as he gradually realized the human condition it was all a part of. In short he began to "awaken" to reality rather than imagine and judge it. The idea of the movie was to raise the question what difference ir would make if we did consciously live our lives rather than imagine and judge it. It could lead to the escape from eternal recurrence.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on March 29th, 2019, 11:03 am 

Nick -

I'm sorry, but we can't go back to Plato and Hollywood movies for our understanding of life! Life is here, now, real.

When you say awaken to what is around us, i.e. be thoroughly conscious of it, that of course is right. But you're assuming eternal recurrence. One is factual, the other not.

Incidentally, as I've pointed out before, the ending to the Plato's cave story is that one of them DOES escape. But, as has happened again and again throughout history, no one wants to know about some other reality.

It's not a bad analogy. There are certainly those who have broken their bonds and 'found the light'. Either no one understands them or they're seen as a danger and ignored or destroyed.

Mind you, what this has to do with the idea of eternal recurrence, I wouldn't know. It's entirely theoretical.

What is true, however, is that as long as one has not broken the bonds inevitably the same round of mistakes is repeated. That, again, history amply demonstrates.

To leap from there to the sci-fi idea of literally living the same life over and over... what's the point? It's actually nonsensical if one cares to think about it.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on March 29th, 2019, 12:02 pm 

Charon

To leap from there to the sci-fi idea of literally living the same life over and over... what's the point? It's actually nonsensical if one cares to think about it.


Why do people contemplate what time is. Life goes on regardless and such speculstions just get in the way of our daily activities. Yet some people do. Concerns for the objective meaning and purpose of our universe are important enough to disturb daily life. It may be nonsensical but it happens.

What is moment in time? Does it repeat? If it doesn't how can it support existence? Imagine a moment in time as a point. String an infinity of points together and it becomes eternity. If a moment in time repeats, an eternity repeats. There is no reason that the universe cannot consist of an infinity of eternities It isn't a matter of belief but of opening the mind to a logical potential many far brighter than me have studied
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on March 29th, 2019, 2:16 pm 

Nick -

Why do people contemplate what time is.


It depends what you mean by contemplate. To consider time and its implications is very wise. But if contemplation means idling away the time in amusement then it's not worthwhile.

Time is extremely interesting. We live by time, our life is ruled by it! But time as time of day is one thing and the time we invent as tomorrow's fulfilment is another. That's delusion because psychologically there's no time; life is now. We use time as a means of postponement: 'I'll be happy tomorrow' and tomorrow never comes.

Concerns for the objective meaning and purpose of our universe are important enough to disturb daily life. It may be nonsensical but it happens.


That's not what I said was nonsensical, don't misquote me. I said it was pointless to live the same life over and over. Nothing about the meaning of the universe.

What is moment in time? Does it repeat?


No, it doesn't, ever. Life is eternally new at every moment. That's the whole point. The dawn of this morning has never been before and will never be again. Every day is a new day and we don't know what it will bring. This is fact, not speculation or supposition.

String an infinity of points together and it becomes eternity.


But that is not eternity. Time is a single, undivided movement. It's we, with our minds, that split it into separate moments. There are no separate moments, there's just the present in which everything is. That's a fact; all time is now. Everything is in the present.

The word eternity means out of time. It means timelessness. What is timeless is eternal, not an unending continuity of time going on forever. When time ends there is the eternal.

It isn't a matter of belief but of opening the mind to a logical potential many far brighter than me have studied


Opening the mind doesn't mean indulging in speculation, myth, fantasy, and imagination. If you'll forgive my saying so, it's not philosophy either.

Too much imaginative amusement is called philosophy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, of truth, of understanding, and there's no understanding in idle speculation, inventing all kinds of non-factual things. Understanding is not the understanding of theories but the understanding of actuality, and that actuality is our daily reality.

If we put our energies into understanding ourselves, because we are at the centre of everything we call life, we would be very wise. But spinning endless words, ideas and theoretical scenarios is not wise, it's a waste of time, energy and life.

The mysteries of life are not the mysteries we invent. It's foolish to invent things that don't exist when we don't even understand the things which do. Wouldn't you say that? We are surrounded by mysteries but instead of looking there we speculate and invent. How extraordinary we are!
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby hyksos on March 29th, 2019, 4:07 pm 

Finally, this thread is about Nietzsche, and not Plato

So more specifically the thread is about eternal recurrence, which is a fine and interesting topic from Nietzsche.

Nevertheless, in years past, the internet has been home to what I call "Nietzsche fanboys". Realizing that I may be digressing a few meters away from the "core topic" of the thread, I wanted to throw some items out there in a Nietzsche thread. What I want to do first is enumerate a list of facts that "Nietzsche fanboys" are wholy unaware of. Science and biology has exploded since the interval of the lifetime of Frederick Nietzsche. Let me just start listing some items as they come to me ...

  • Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were soaked up to the neck in German philosophy of their time and place. German philosophy was almost entirely situated around Hegel at the time. Nietzsche, being a product of his time can mostly be interpreted as a response to that, or a rejection of it, or however you want to say it. In any case, to be a "respected philosopher" of the mid-19th century Germany, you had to "speak the language" of Hegelianism, or you were not respected as an academic. Nietzsche was absolutely capable of speaking Hegelianism. If you are not academically trained in Hegel and something called German Idealism , then 80% of Nietzsche's output makes absolutely no sense.
  • Absolutely and vehemently Nietzsche did not derive his "Will TO Power" dictate from a deep and thorough understanding of evolutionary biology. Do not mince my words. We have very good reasons for believing that Nietzsche perhaps rejected Darwinian evolution. This topic will not be resolved or solved on this forum. Academics can barely reach a consensus. The quotes of (N) indicate that Darwin's theory of evolution stood in opposition to the Will-to-Power underlying all living organisms. To be factually honest, (N)'s writing output is large, yet (N) had very little to say about evolution in all his writing.
  • Unlike today in 2019, the concept of Vitalism was considered a perfectly valid scientific theory to describe life and existence of life in the universe. Nietzsche wrote extensively about how the Will-to-Power is some kind of "spirit essence life force" that underpins all of physical reality. He several times wrote that animals, plants, insects, men and trees are "manifestations" of this underlying Will-substance, vital essence stuff
  • Nietzsche fanboys often project onto him as some kind of anti-christian atheist superhero, who would never divulge into mystical concepts like "vital essences" which "underpin" all organisms. Unfortunately, a strong argument can be made that both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were vitalists. This did not make them stupid , uneducated, mystical or otherwise. Due to German Idealism (and Hegel) these concepts of vital essences were considered completely scientific in the 19th century. That is to say, even the most educated Germans took these ideas seriously.
  • Certain portions of (N) indicate that he thought that anyone who would even suggest that time had a beginning could only be asserted by the "worst of ignoramuses" {or something like that, dig the exact quote up later} He does not develop the topic in a thorough and systematic manner. Merely just a harsh indictment of anyone who would suggest such. The modern theories of Cosmology find a beginning of time to be perfectly mathematically reasonable, and worse for (N) totally supported by evidence. That is not to say that a Big Bang happened and this is a fact. All these theories of cosmology are theories --- (ready at any time to be overturned by falsifying evidence). Nevertheless, the whole situation where a Beginning-Of-Time is considered totally logically reasonable, is missed by Nietzsche.
  • In 2019, walk into any given university. The entire faculty of the cosmology department will say that Time beginning is perfectly fine and even evidentially supported. Interestingly enough, by the time you get to Albert Einstein (circa 1912ish) it is still just naturally assumed that time stretches infinitely into the past. Einstein inserted a cosmological constant to "make sure" that Steady State assumption is satisfied.

Long story short -- to try to summarize where I'm going with all these points. Nietzsche is not your atheist superhero.

Nietzsche neither predicted or seemed to know how explosive Evolution by Natural Selection was going to be soon. Out of the gigantic corpus of output, (N) wrote maybe 2 paragraphs about the theory, (max?) E-N-S is going to come to dominate everything about how all of science talks about life. Molecular biochemistry did not even become a scientific discipline until the late 1940s. That required molecular microscopy to be invented. Today we can assert that all life forms on this planet contain DNA, and that the base pairs are identical in every single organism. from the whale, to the cheetah, from the tree to the green mold on your bread in your kitchen , same base pair nucleotides, identical to the atom. At the time Nietzsche's principle output (circa 1870-1890), science had not really discovered the structure of atoms, and so arguments about whether substance is continuous or made of "molecules" persisted.

Godel's theorem was cataclysmic, and struck at the heart of all logic and mathematics. Literally issues that had not been visited since the time of Aristotle had to be re-vised dramatically. You have to get back into issues raised by PLATO'S CAVE. (::cough::cough::)

Quantum Mechanics was cataclysmic, and struck at the heart of the nature of reality in a way that is still not resolved. I would assert even that QM is as revolutionary as athenian greece was to Western Civ. (let me double down on this. In 2019 we sit on an internet debating about whether empty space has energy in it. For Christ sakes, we discuss how Heisenberg permits virtual particles to pop out of empty space and do things to the Higgs mechanism!!! This is how far we have come from 1889.)

Natural Selection and Evolution were cataclysmic -- for reasons already given above.

Nietzsche is writing in a tradition of German Idealism. As above at the outset, if you don't know this, 80% of what Nietzsche writes is incomprehensible.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on March 29th, 2019, 5:51 pm 

Nick_A » March 29th, 2019, 8:06 am wrote:For some reason Groundhog Day repeated again and again. The only thing that could change was his conscious experience of the day.

Not so. He also had control of his own actions, and when he behaved differently, he was able to affect what happened to other people and thus influence their behaviour as they responded to his.

Gradually he became less attached to events

No, he had never been attached to events: he had merely witnessed them from a distance, superficially.
He became more concerned about and affected by other people.
It was not about letting go: it was about forming attachments.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby BadgerJelly on March 29th, 2019, 8:06 pm 

Nick -

This is eternal recurrence as was used in the movie.


Groundhog Day is nothing like what Nietzsche meant by “eternal recurrence”. I’m bored of the obsession with Plato in every thread too, but I do understand how one can be taken in by a certain idea and want to apply it to everything.

It may be worth relating what Nietzsche thought of Plato if you wish but you’ll have to read Nietzsche first.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 1st, 2019, 11:08 am 

The bottom line is that I have the humility to admit there are those far more intelligent than me in the real meaning of the word. You consider it a weakness while I consider it a strength


Your protestations of humility and dimness of mind are beginning to sound strangely ego-centered, Nick. I do wish you'd stop it.

You haven't answered my post, by the way. In fact, you've done what the people in the cave did when they were shown an alternative, which is ignore it.

There is no point whatsoever in living the same life repetitively. It might make a good movie but in real life it's nonsense and has no bearing on reality.

Besides, it's also true that we don't learn from experience. We've had thousands and thousands of years of stupid, self-destructive behaviour. We've obviously learnt nothing from it because every day we're doing exactly the same thing again and again, generation after generation.

So, if other lives are a reality, guess how we're going to lead them? Ridiculous. Anyway, carry on, it's a wonderful entertainment!
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Serpent on April 1st, 2019, 6:17 pm 

Nick_A » April 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm wrote:
That is the point. Living by animal reactive consciousness just produces the same results.

That didn't enter into the thought-experiment. If it did, it would be immaterial, anyway, since animals with reactive consciousness (whatever that is) never produce the same result twice. Each animal experiences every moment of its own unique life. No repetition. Not even of the habitual motions of actions that take place several times a day. Watch a real live animal sometime.
Hey, just be aware of a real live anything for an hour.
Endlessly repeating other people's ponderings and homilies does produce the same result: you bore everyone right out of your thread.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 1st, 2019, 7:44 pm 

Nick -

You insist on equating analytic contemplation with conscious contemplation


Analytic contemplation is conscious contemplation. You must be conscious of what you're doing in order to analyse.

But the real question is whether it's contemplation at all. The word means to gaze on, not to analyse or otherwise dissect. So one might ask whether true contemplation is a conscious activity at all. I suggest it's not. The person who says 'I am contemplating', isn't. I don't know what they're doing but it's not contemplation.

Analysis is a function of the lower mind while conscious contemplation is a function of higher mind.


There's no higher or lower mind, there's just mind. Mind is what we use to analyse, plan, calculate, and so on. Mind is the thinking process. Again, contemplation is gazing, not thinking. Someone engaged in thought is not contemplating, they're thinking.

Only becoming capable of human conscious witnessing the world and freedom from blind emotional reaction makes change possible


Is change merely the freedom from blind emotional response? What do you mean by freedom? Freedom means the absence of any kind of conditioned thought.

Our lives repeat in eternity as I showed in the link to the six dimensions


Your link is only a theory. It says so - 'The Theory Of Six Dimensions'. A theory is not a fact. You have not showed us anything about lives repeating by posting a theory.

Of course it is ridiculous to you since you have never pondered the logic of such ideas


It's ridiculous to anyone with half an ounce of sense, Nick. Theory is not fact. Show me a fact, not some imaginative theory about unprovable things.

You prefer to mock what you don’t understand.


Oh, I think I understand it only too well. Theory means someone invented it, in this case someone called John Raithel.

All the great ideas of the past having the purpose of opening minds must be scorned This is basic child abuse easily leading to metaphysical repression. The profs can laugh about it. Who knows, they may even agree that even though this kid’s body survived abortion they can still kill the awakening seed of the soul.


There are some very strange things going on in your head, aren't there?

I have a feeling that the more we respond to your posts the worse it's going to get. I hope I'm not right.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 2nd, 2019, 1:31 am 

Charon

Analytic contemplation is conscious contemplation. You must be conscious of what you're doing in order to analyse.


No, a computer analyses quite well without conscious contemplation. It is the same with us. Analysis is a mechanical process rather than a conscious one.

But the real question is whether it's contemplation at all. The word means to gaze on, not to analyse or otherwise dissect. So one might ask whether true contemplation is a conscious activity at all. I suggest it's not. The person who says 'I am contemplating', isn't. I don't know what they're doing but it's not contemplation.


Mechanical contemplation is based on dualism. Conscious contemplation opens the mind to a triune perspective. The value of the contradiction for a philosopher is that it invites conscious contemplation of the contradiction which cannot be reconciled by didactive thought


Analysis is a function of the lower mind while conscious contemplation is a function of higher mind.


There's no higher or lower mind, there's just mind. Mind is what we use to analyse, plan, calculate, and so on. Mind is the thinking process. Again, contemplation is gazing, not thinking. Someone engaged in thought is not contemplating, they're thinking.


This is where IMO you are guided by a great misconception. You are not the only one. Most of secularism will agree that the rational mind is our highest form of thought. But is it? This will not make the thought police happy but I will refer again to old ideas and this time first by Plotinus. It would be the same for Plato:

“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.” — Plotinus


They assert that the highest degree of knowledge is beyond the domain of the dialectic but comes to us through higher mind or intuition.

Plato in the Divided Line Allegory refers to four degrees of knowledge:

• noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
• dianoia (discursive thought)
• pistis (belief or confidence)
• eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)


A person begins in delusion and easily leads to beliefs. Discursive thought questions belief which is where secularism stops and begins to argue beliefs. Yet some can see how foolish it is for the person seeking wisdom and strives to experience the level of conscious reality within which opposing beliefs are reconciled. Rational thought can reach its limits inviting higher mind to reconcile duality through conscious contemplation. A zen koan trains the monk to move beyond dependence on reason to experience the truth of the human condition

A zen koan is a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason you seem to hold as the highest form of reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment.

Parables in the Bible serve the same function inviting the reader to consciously contemplate and experience meanings not available to discursive thought.

Is change merely the freedom from blind emotional response? What do you mean by freedom? Freedom means the absence of any kind of conditioned thought.


Inner freedom is the ability “to be.” All the great teachings in one way or another assert that we are slaves to the human condition. Many philosophers were and are aware of this situation. Didn’t Nietzsche speak of “wretched contentment?” Jacob Needleman wrote a book about it

https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/10/1 ... needleman/

“This is the entire essence of life: Who are you? What are you?” So proclaimed Leo Tolstoy in the diaries of his youth. “I: how firm a letter; how reassuring the three strokes: one vertical, proud and assertive, and then the two short horizontal lines in quick, smug succession,” eighteen-year-old Sylvia Plath marveled in her own diary a century after Tolstoy as she contemplated free will and what makes us who we are. Indeed, these three smug lines slice through the core of our experience as human beings, and yet when we begin to dismantle them, we begin to lose sight of that core, of the essence of life. What, then, are we made of? What, then, makes us?
In I Am Not I (public library), philosopher Jacob Needlemanpicks up where Tolstoy and Plath left off, and enlists more of humanity’s most wakeful minds — from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to William James to D.T. Suzuki — in finding embrocation for, if not an answer to, these most restless-making questions of existence. Out of the inquiry itself arises an immensely hope-giving offering — a sort of secular sacrament illuminating what lies at the heart of the most profound experiences we’re capable of having: joy, love, hope, wonder, astonishment, transcendence.

These are not hip questions inviting dualistic debate but instead questions of the heart still remembered and respected by some. The freedom to be requires coming to grips with the most ancient philosophical question: Who Am I?

It's ridiculous to anyone with half an ounce of sense, Nick. Theory is not fact. Show me a fact, not some imaginative theory about unprovable things.


This is where we have our basic disagreement. You are concerned with what to know and I am concerned with how to understand. You want facts and I say without acquiring a human perspective facts become meaningless. A human perspective requires opening the mind to a quality of reason higher than discursive thought which is denied in modern secularism which by definition denies a source for higher conscious reality so must restrict itself to discursive thought

There are some very strange things going on in your head, aren't there?

I have a feeling that the more we respond to your posts the worse it's going to get. I hope I'm not right.

Yes, If you explore philosophy with a desire to understand rather than deny strange things may go on in your head as well. That is why I admire Simone Weil. She had the courage, intelligence, and need to look – to gaze upon with conscious detachment rather than judge. How is it that one young woman could be capable of what learned men twice her age were and are incapable of regardless of the growls of the thought police?

A phrase used by the title character in the play Hamlet , by William Shakespeare. Hamlet suggests that human knowledge is limited: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [science].


Old but oh so true.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 2nd, 2019, 1:40 am 

Serpent » April 1st, 2019, 6:21 pm wrote:
Child abuse must be wonderful entertainment.

Child abuse???


“The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but that, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry.” ― Simone Weil.

Simone is providing a most elegant description of the effects of metphysical repression. When schools with their attitudes destroy the attraction to eros or the middle ground between Man and his creator in the minds and hearts of the young, it is a very damaging form of child abuse.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 2nd, 2019, 9:40 am 

Nick -

Analysis is a mechanical process rather than a conscious one.


Right, I think I see how you're using the words. Yes, analysis is a fairly mechanical operation. One simply breaks things down, looks for causes, and so on.

When you use the word conscious, however, you don't mean that. You're referring, I take it, to a higher level of mind, one that perhaps is simply aware and observes.

Would that be it?

I'm afraid I wouldn't put it like that, and I'll tell you why. Well, I would put it like that but I wouldn't use the word conscious.

It's not that I'm sticking to my definition of conscious as opposed to yours, which would be childish, it's that I want to be quite sure what word actually means.

When are you conscious? I'm not talking about being physically awake as opposed to being asleep or unconscious. I'm asking when are we conscious of something psychologically.

We're conscious of our body when there's pain, right? When there's a physical pain or discomfort we become aware of it. When we're healthy we forget the body, we don't say we're conscious of anything.

Surely it's the same psychologically too? We're only conscious when something goes wrong, when there's a conflict, an upset, when something's not right. If there's nothing wrong we forget ourselves, we just get on with living.

I think that's right. It's not dogmatic or peculiar. If there's no block of any kind we just live and move. Now you're saying there's conscious contemplation.

As I said, the word contemplation means to gaze upon, to look at, meditate, and so on. Is that a conscious process? Or a self-conscious process, if you like?

Analysis is a conscious process. One applies oneself deliberately to it, sifting, separating, seeking out causes, and all that. One doesn't do it willy-nilly, one does it because one wants to find something, the answer to a problem or something one doesn't understand. We hope that by analysing and finding the cause of a problem we'll solve the problem. I think that's right.

Now is contemplation like that? I don't know if you see what I mean. Is contemplation something one does deliberately, hoping for an answer, an insight? And, if we do, is that actually contemplation at all?

Is it contemplation as long as it's deliberate, motivated, something one does to get a result from it? Is it contemplation when there's effort, any form of struggle, or hoping to achieve something?

I say it's not, and I'm quite categorical about it! Such action, though it may be called contemplation or meditation, is not the real thing. It's actually a self-centred activity based on one's desire, the desire for an answer or an experience. It's not contemplation at all, in fact.

So one sees that the state of contemplation can't be consciously pursued, it's something that comes upon one unasked. One may be out walking, or sitting in a field, or riding in a car, and the moment one becomes conscious of it, it's gone.

It's only in that state, which is a state of complete self-forgetfulness, that insights occur. One can't possibly pursue an insight or make it happen, it's impossible. Therefore, as you rightly point out, whereas analysis is a mechanical process the state of the contemplative mind is utterly non-mechanical and therefore something unconscious.

I won't go into any other points now because I think this one's sufficient for this post.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Next

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests