Some Nietzsche quotes re Consciousness

[jimhaz]

I typed these up for another post. Might as well post them here. They are from a book called "Writings from the Late Notebooks", which I've just starting reading.

These were written in 1885 (around the time of BGandE). Can anyone tell me if these concepts are included in his books? I still haven't read any of his books (apart from a bit of TSZ) - but looking at some of the notes so far, I'm starting to see that he has said a few things I've said, that I haven't seen others say, or comment on - but, of course, he phrases them far better than I've said them (and with about a million times more breadth of content :) .

<hr />
Nietzsche and science IMO has already satisfactorily explained consciousness. Here are some of Nietzsche's quotes from his notebooks:

"Sense perception happens without our awareness: whatever we become conscious of is a perception that has already been processed."

"If I have anything of a unity within me, it certainly does not lie in the conscious "I" and in feeling, willing, thinking, but somewhere else: in the sustaining, appropriating, expelling, watchful prudence of my whole organism, of which my conscious self is only a tool. Feeling, willing, thinking: everywhere show only the outcomes, the causes of which are entirely unknown to me: the way these outcomes succeeded out of its predecessor is probably just an illusion: in truth' the causes may be strung together in such a way as to give me the impression of being associated, logically or psychologically. The true world of causes is hidden from us: it is unutterably complicated. The intellect and the senses are above all a simplifying apparatus*. Yet our erroneous, miniaturised, logicised world of causes is the one we can live in.

If our intellect did not have some fixed forms, living would be impossible. But that doesn't prove anything about the truth of logical facts."

*Me: This comment is important in relation to ID. It shows that the nature of intelligence is illusory - intelligence is not a broadening of knowing, but merely a limiting of all possible knowledge for a purpose. Intelligence must therefore be limited, it must be a thing, and thus cannot be universal.

"The chronological order reversed

The 'external world' affects us, the effect is telegraphed into our brain, there arranged, given shape and traced back to tits cause: then the cause is projected, and only then does the fact enter into our consciousness. That is, the world of appearances appears to us as a cause only once 'it' has exerted its effect and the effect has been processed. That is we are constantly reversing the order of what happens. While 'I' see, it is already seeing something different."

"We imagine that what is commanding and highest resides in our consciousness. Ultimately we have a double brain: we encompass in the word 'consciousness' our capacity itself to will, feel, think something of our own feeling, willing, thinking"

The logic of our conscious thinking is only a crude and facilitated form of the thinking needed by our organism, indeed by the particular organs of our organism.
Our feeling of causality is something quite crude and isolated compared to our organism's real feelings of causality. In particular 'before' and 'after' is a great piece of naivety.

Finally: we first had to acquire everything for consciousness: a sense of time, a sense of place, a sense of causality; it having long existed, and far more richly, without consciousness. And what we acquired was a certain simplest, plainest, most reduced form: our conscious willing, feeling, thinking is in the service of a much more comprehensive willing feeling thinking."

"Just as there are many things a General does not need to know, and must not know if he is to keep hold of his overall view, so in our conscious mind there must be above all a drive to exclude, to chase away, a selecting drive - which only certain facts cane be presented to it. Consciousness is the hand with which the organism reaches out furthest: it must be a firm hand. Our logic, our sense of time, sense of space are prodigious capacities to abbreviate, for the purpose of commanding. A concept is an invention which nothing corresponds to wholly but many things slightly: a proposition such as 'two things, being equal to a third, are themselves' assumes (1) things and (2) equalities - neither exists. Yet within this invented and rigid world of concepts and numbers, man gains a means of seizing by signs, as it were, huge quantities of facts and inscribing them in his memory. This apparatus of signs is man's superiority, precisely because it is at the furthest possible distance from the individual facts. The reduction of experience to signs and the ever greater quantity of things which thus can be grasped, is man's highest strength. Intellectuality as the capacity to be master of a huge number of facts in signs. This intellectual world, this sign world, is pure 'illusion and deception', as is every 'phenomenal thing'."

"The whole fabric of the organic world is the threading together of beings with little fabricated worlds around them; by their projecting, as they experience, their strength, their desires, their habits outside themselves as their external world. The capacity to create (fashion, fabricate, invent) is their fundamental capacity: naturally, their idea of themselves is likewise only a false, fabricated, simplified one. 'A being with the habit of dreaming according to some kind of rule' - that is a living being. Huge numbers of such habits have finally become so hardened that the whole species can live upon them."

"That man is a multiplicity of forces which stand in an order of rank, so that there are those which
command, but what commands, too, must provide for those which obey everything they need to preserve themselves, and is thus conditioned by itself conditioned by their existence. All these living beings must be related in kind, otherwise they would not serve and obey one another like this: what serves must in some sense, also be an obeyer, and in more delicate cases the roles must temporarily switch so that what

"We find it ill considered that the human consciousness has for so long been regarded as the highest stage of organic development and as the most astonishing of all earthly things, indeed as their blossoming and goal. In fact what is more astonishing is the body: there is no end to admiration for how the human body has become possible; how such a prodigious alliance of living beings, each dependant and subservient and yet in a certain sense also commanding and acting out of its own will, can live, grow, and for a while prevail, as a whole - and we can see this does not occur due to consciousness! For this 'miracle of miracles', consciousness is just a tool and nothing more - a tool in the same sense that the stomach is a tool. The magnificent binding together of the most diverse life, the ordering and arrangement of the higher and lower activities, the thousand-fold obedience which is not blind, even less mechanical, but a selecting, shrewd, considerate, even resistant obedience - measured by intellectual standards, this whole phenomenon 'body' is as superior to our consciousness, our 'mind', our conscious thinking, feeling willing, as algebra is superior to times tables. The apparatus of nerves and brain is not constructed this subtly and 'divinely'; so as to bring forth thinking, feeling, willing at all. It seems to me, instead that precisely this thinking, feeling, willing does not itself require an 'apparatus' but that the so-called apparatus, an it alone, is the thing that counts. Rather, such a prodigious synthesis of living beings and intellects as is called man will only be able to live once that subtle system of connections and mediations and thus lightning fast communication between all these higher and lower beings, has been created - and created by nothing but living intermediaries: this however is a problem of morality not of mechanics! Nowadays we've forbidden ourselves to 'spin yarns' about 'unity' the 'soul', the person: hypotheses like these make one's problem more difficult, that much is clear.

And as for us, even those smallest living beings which constitute our body (more correctly: for whose interaction the thing we call 'body', is the best simile - ), are not soul atoms but rather something growing, struggling, reproducing and dying off again : so that their number alters unsteadily, and our living, like all living, is at once an incessant dying. There are thus in man as many 'consciousnesses' as - at every moment of his existence - there are beings which constitute the body.0The distinguishing feature of that 'consciousness' usually held to be the only one, the intellect, is precisely that it remains protected and closed off from the immeasurable multiplicity in the experiences of these many consciousness and that, as a consciousness of a higher ran, as a governing multitude and aristocracy, it is presented only with a selection of experiences - experiences, furthermore, that have all been simplified, made easy to survey and grasp, thus falsified - so that they in turn may carry on this simplification and making graspable, in other words this falsification, and prepare what is currently called 'a will' - every such act of will requires so to speak, the appointment of a dictator. However, what presents this selection to our intellect, what has simplified, assimilated, interpreted experiences beforehand, is at any rate not that intellect itself; anymore than it is the intellect which carries out the will, which takes up a pale, watery and extremely imprecise idea of value and force and translates it into a living force, precise measures of value. And just the same kind of operation as is enacted here must keep being enacted on all the deeper levels, in the behaviours of all these higher and lower beings towards one another: this same selection and presentation of experiences, this abstraction and thinking-together, this willing, this translation of always very unspecific willing back into specific activity. Along the guiding thread of the body, as I have said, we learn that our life is possible through an interplay of many intelligences that are very unequal in value, and thus only through a constant thousand-fold obeying and commanding - speaking in moral terms: through the incessant exercise of many virtues. And how could one not speak in moral terms!"

[David Quinn]

A lot of good stuff there. I think you can find this material in the "Will to Power", which was a compilation of his private writings published by his sister after his breakdown.

It should be noted, of course, that Nietsche's reasoning here doesn't really undermine human intelligence or the comprehenson of truth. It only undermines those types of knowledge that are derived from the forms and objects we perceive with our senses - in other words, scientific and empirical knowledge.

[jimhaz]

The Last Man is clearly not to far away.


Move over Rambo, you're cramping new man's style Wed Jun 8,10:29 AM ET

PARIS (AFP) - Macho man is an endangered species, with today's male more likely to opt for a pink flowered shirt and swingers' clubs than the traditional role as family super-hero, fashion industry insiders say.

A study along these lines led by French marketing and style consultants Nelly Rodi was unveiled to Fashion Group International during a seminar Tuesday on future strategy for the fashion industry in Europe.

"The masculine ideal is being completely modified. All the traditional male values of authority, infallibility, virility and strength are being completely overturned," said Pierre Francois Le Louet, the agency's managing director.

Instead today's males are turning more towards "creativity, sensitivity and multiplicity," as seen already in recent seasons on the catwalks of Paris and Milan.

Arnold Schwarznegger and Sylvester Stallone are being replaced by the 21st-century man who "no longer wants to be the family super-hero", but instead has the guts to be himself, to test his own limits.

"We are watching the birth of a hybrid man. ... Why not put on a pink-flowered shirt and try out a partner-swapping club?" asked Le Louet, stressing that the study had focused on men aged between 20 and 35.

Sociologists and other experts spent three months analyzing some 150 magazines and books and 146 Internet sites, as well as interviewing a dozen experts from Europe, the United States and China.

The traditional man still exists in China, Le Louet said, and "is not ready to go". But in Europe and the United States, a new species is emerging, apparently unafraid of anything.

"He is looking for a more radical affirmation of who he is, and wants to test out all the barbarity of modern life" including in the sexual domain, said Le Louet, adding that Reebok with its "I am what I am" campaign had perfectly tapped into this current trend.

The emergence of this new male beast who wants to look and feel good, and who will also have an impact on the role of women, presages a new potentially lucrative market for the European fashion industry.

"All those labels which have adapted to this freedom of expression are on the up, all those which are too rigid will suffer in the future," Le Louet said, pointing to the growing success of sports and casual wear manufacturers.

"There is an increasing desire for people to be in charge of their own lives, and an intolerance for any lack of autonomy," he told the debate.

"We are also moving into a different situation. We no longer need what we are used to, rather we need what is new. But a motorway without any signs is total panic. So we need some beacons ... and we need a little bit of fun."

Today's consumer wants to feel pampered, but also to be able to take time out, feel good and feel alive.

"We have to help people to create their own look. And we absolutely must help people to dream, and if we help people to dream perhaps the world will be a little bit better," he said.

[David Quinn]

Yes, this is a worrying trend. Instead of sublimating the masucline traits found in the Rambo type and reshaping them towards the pursuit of wisdom, the current trend is to get rid of masculinity altogether and turn males into shallow "hybrid men" - which really means turning them into second-rate women. What a nightmare.

[Kelly Jones 210]

What depresses me are these legions of fighting men, with a natural abundance of testosterone, simply bowing to the stock behaviour of how to be male. It should make me hoot with laughter. The typical male these days crumbles instantly at a challenge, unless backed up by adrenaline and a mate.

For instance, Kyokushin (Ultimate Truth) Karate is a great example. Packs of moronic robots shout "OS!" (Persistence!) repeatedly at their gung-ho instructor, brainwashed to be instinctive fighters. After class, they can't back away from an intellectual challenge. They want to win, so they have a chance.

Warring animals are better than the effeminate literary man, who prefers not to get engaged in anything mentally challenging. He knows his brain is too atrophied, and he doesn't care.

I have to drive myself to overcome hormonally-induced passivity, timidity and cowardice. I've only got grit, and arrogance - and the fear of tormenting myself into insanity. Running with the pack feeds the need for power, so it's an awesome struggle to be alone. It's gut-wrenching to face rejection, effort after effort. But to stand apart with your own values is like heaven: you're free. Even if you're judged insane, and people shy away like little lambs in a paddock.

I've been reading a lot on hormones. So much of behaviour and personality, even thinking processes, come from hormones. I think this is probably one of the greatest challenges: for the understanding of Truth to remain clear and unattached, indifferent to all that one's bodily organism does.

If you're naturally well-stocked with testosterone, confidence, vigour, determination and pride, then you only need to challenge the pompous belief that every thought is automatically true.

In a way, it's like being indifferent to all one's thoughts.

[David Quinn]

Kelly wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>What depresses me are these legions of fighting men, with a natural abundance of testosterone, simply bowing to the stock behaviour of how to be male. It should make me hoot with laughter. The typical male these days crumbles instantly at a challenge, unless backed up by adrenaline and a mate.<hr> It always used to amaze me when I was younger just how little interest my male friends had in "breaking" their genetic programming. For example, it never seemed to disturb them that they were acting like robots whenever they started drooling over the chicks. Surely, they can't be this boring and dense, I used to think.


Quote:Quote:<hr>I've been reading a lot on hormones. So much of behaviour and personality, even thinking processes, come from hormones. <hr> Perhaps in future spiritual teachings will come, not from books and lectures, but from a vial .....

[David Quinn]

More on the emergence of the "Last Man". I like the way that the idealistic period of the 60s and 70s is referred to as "the Great Disruption". It does increasingly appear that way.

--

From <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 37,00.html" target="top">The Australian</a>:

Post-everything generation
Kate Legge
June 11, 2005

HER Majesty will be agog. Banished for decades from student premises where her portrait, often defaced, doubled as a dart board, the Queen is about to be hung by a mob of conservative heretics.

A coterie of pro-Liberal student leaders at the University of New England is bent on ransacking politically correct queer rooms and women's departments with the abandon that brought down communism's Berlin Wall.

Earlier this year the student council voted to install an Australian flag and a picture of the Queen. Two weeks ago students at this rural NSW campus voted narrowly in favour of seceding from the National Union of Students, saving themselves $40,000 a year in affiliation fees.

Though not as sexy as another decision - to hold a UNE beauty pageant, with categories for swimwear and evening gowns - it was an inevitable inflammatory step for an executive keen to represent heterosexuals and men in a mischievous dig at the gay and lesbian officers who are part of campus furniture across the country.

"They want to go back to the 1950s," fumed UNE education student Tony Maslen, who takes earnest umbrage at this flip, hip parodying of the causes dear to his parents' baby-boomer generation. The spate of sacrilege sits comfortably with a demographic among which moleskins outnumber pierced tongues.

One outbreak does not make a revolution but UNE's charge would be useful proof for US commentator Brian C. Anderson who, after interviewing 50 students in a population of millions, hailed a right-wing insurgency sweeping American colleges in his book South Park Conservatives. Anderson argues that the Left's stranglehold on universities is weakening, even at Berkeley, that Californian crucible of '60s ferment.

"Never has the Right flourished among college kids as it does today," he writes.

Young Republican chapters, gun clubs, student newspapers ripe with anti-liberal satire and conservative speakers are in renaissance, Anderson says, while support for abortion, taxing the rich and environmental programs is on the wane.

His thesis is that Comedy Central's irreverent television cartoon South Park, which butchers sacred cows, has emboldened a generation of kids sick of moral relativism and family breakdown.

Australia is not America. Our gun lobby is weak, affirmative action for blacks is not mainstream, evangelical religion, while enjoying a growth spurt, is not entrenched. That said, there is change afoot.

John Howard's children ate their educational "greens" with a TV diet of Widget the World Watcher, Captain Planet and school projects on recycling, yet last month the Australia Institute reported that 14 to 25-year-olds are least concerned of all age groups about the earth's welfare.

Today's students were born as communism crumbled and seem to lack ideological connections. They took their first steps as the Hawke government re-introduced university fees and they have grown up with the Coalition in power.

Leah Sanderson, student president at the University of Queensland, was dining on fish fingers and Milo at a friend's sleepover the night Howard won office. Ten years on she is struggling to whip up protests over commonwealth legislation for voluntary student unionism, which the Left predicts will be the final nail in activism's coffin. Yet Sanderson does not belong to any party.

"I couldn't put words to my political persuasion," she says, echoing her contemporaries' disdain for ideological labels, in contrast to the slavish devotion many show to brand names worn on T-shirts, jeans, shoes and mobile phones.

Paul Donegan, her counterpart at Melbourne University, also shirks alignment with any party. "I can't even articulate why," he says, conceding that one-size-fits-all allegiance is "frowned upon. People see it as uncool."

Donegan disagrees that South Park conservatives are taking over Australian universities. This "soft Left" Melbourne undergraduate prefers the term passive conservatives to describe a hyper-individualism forged in the competitive pitch for tertiary places, fee-paying jobs, real estate and a family down the track if you can squeeze children into an increasingly crowded life.

Historian Francis Fukuyama predicted in 1999 that this century would see the return of conservative norms as society corrects for the political extremes of the '60s and '70s, which he labelled "the Great Disruption". Some commentators also theorise that human beings are wired genetically for a preference for stable ways, and even religion.

Australian twentysomethings are evidence that the pendulum is swinging. Femininity is back, with girls paying big bucks for pretty dresses and accessories. Boys too spend on cosmetics and hair gel. Fashion is hot. Ditto consumption, a pastime scorned by the free-love values of the communes and caftan crowd.

Students these days are likely to be living at home with parents whom they regard as close friends. According to new data from the Australian Institute of Family Studies' Australian Temperament Project, which has followed 2500 children since 1983, the great majority are working or studying; they rarely argue with parents; most act responsibly, and intend overwhelmingly to marry or settle down with long-term partners.

"My impression is one of quite strong traditionalism," says project researcher Diana Smart. They might wear tie-dye T-shirts and decorate rooms with retro lava lamps, but this is not a generation given to rowdy, overt protest. They fill their iPods with Van Morrison and Eminem. They plug in to personalised networks, not social movements. Phones are the most common addiction.

They have embraced Gallipoli and Anzac Day, perhaps marching in support of Australian war veterans while also opposing our involvement in Iraq.

"They are so savvy," says Neer Korn, analyst with the Sydney-based social research firm Heartbeat. "There is much more distrust of institutions. You say the word corporation, they think bastard. You say priest, they think pedophile. They are post-sexist, post-racist, post-multiculturalist, truly postmodern."

Consider the thorny ethical dilemmas debated by 16-year-olds at a Melbourne school: genetically modified crops, euthanasia, in-vitro fertilisation, cloning, pornography, sterilisation of sex offenders, ordination of women as priests.

Policy prescriptions dictated from a head office have been rendered obsolete by the breadth of contemporary debate and the rapid pace of technological change. "Students may be conservative on one issue and Marxist on another," says Natalie Hepburn, student president at the University of Western Australia. "I would never join a party."

Many of the present crop of student leaders had environmentalism drilled into them at school but arrived on campus not knowing the difference between Liberals and the ALP. Institutional attachment to trade unions and political groups has been in decline since their mothers began feeding them organic baby food. The introduction of voluntary student unionism later this year -- if no Coalition senator crosses the floor -- and new industrial laws promoting individual contracts will surely accelerate discomfort with collective action.

Rose Jackson, daughter of ABC journalist Liz Jackson and student president at the University of Sydney, believes activism on her campus has shown extraordinary resilience, given these trends.

"Young people are not [uncaring] but we're constantly given the impression we can't change anything," she says. "I'm cynical myself about how much impact I can have and disillusioned at times about what I can achieve."

Electronic petitions and email are the invisible modus operandi that suits students these days. Elizabeth Shaw, who edits Pelican, the student paper of the University of Western Australia, says the demonstration against voluntary unionism attracted hundreds while thousands more signed protests against the Government's proposed reform.

Schapelle Corby's trial in Bali provoked a flurry of email petitions, according to Shaw, because "we're young, we travel, we think that perhaps this could be me". She says: "Things are quite fluid. There is a reluctance to join parties but people remain active on issues that affect them."

The Australian Temperament Project confirms high personal interest but low collective participation. Eighty-four per cent of the 19 to 20-year-old group made a personal effort to recycle or care for the environment and 81 per cent voted in an election.

But numbers dwindled dramatically when it came to attending a meeting (16per cent), demonstrating in a march (6 per cent), lobbying government (6 per cent) or joining with others to resolve a neighbourhood or local problem (7 per cent).

Self-interest and the safer territory of improving facilities increasingly absorbs a leadership that 30 years ago waded boldly into Middle East conflicts, nuclear weapons, apartheid and the Springbok tours. At Melbourne's RMIT University, the politicians who contested last year's student election on opposition to the Iraq war were skewered by those advocating better computers and library resources.

RMIT's student president Dinesh Rajalingam says "people are interested in their own life". He predicts a rise in Christianity not yet apparent in the churches' head count.

At Adelaide University, the pro-life Democratic Club is more vocal than ever, with a protest against pro-euthanasia philosopher Peter Singer that matched the Left's disruption of Alexander Downer's visit.

The university's student president David Pearson is apologetic for abuse of the Foreign Minister because this fed allegations of feral lefties in a climate of creeping intolerance for extracurricular campaigns. "We get told that student unions should just focus on delivering better computer resources," Pearson says.

Two months ago vandals trashed the George Duncan Room, named after a gay lecturer who died in Adelaide parkland allegedly as a result of police violence. They scrawled homophobic vitriol over the walls. The attack is more likely an aberration than part of a South Park-style campaign to offend minorities, but student orthodoxy is being recast.

Patrick Gorman, president at Perth's Curtin University, typifies the new order. He is a member of the ALP but opposes abortion. While he wants campus office-bearers to represent women, gays, and indigenous students, he bridles at the idea of an environment department. "I can see the need to help students who are oppressed, but a tree does not have difficulty studying," Gorman says.

Conservatism, pragmatism, even derogatory references to individualism, are baby-boomer pigeonholes. Today's rebels might be tamer and more like their grandparents in holding family dearer, but the passionate-hearted among them will reinvent the world. Just wait.

--

[avidaloca]

By the same token it seems that as patriarchal masculinity reached its zenith in the 1950s, and broke down thereafter, the all-powerful feminitity that has taken its place may be in its death throes now also. It has a long way to go, but the ending is viewable at this point. It's not like the nineties where it was growing and growing - now its on a sad decline.

There is something sadly lacking in Western genes however. I can see that, having only half my genetic pool from that stock. Something much too feminine. Men who are only men in name, and who bow to all womens' demands. Who consider first their name among women, before their name among God, themselves and Spirit.

[DHodges]

Quote:Quote:<hr>By the same token it seems that as patriarchal masculinity reached its zenith in the 1950s, and broke down thereafter, the all-powerful feminitity that has taken its place may be in its death throes now also. It has a long way to go, but the ending is viewable at this point. It's not like the nineties where it was growing and growing - now its on a sad decline.<hr>

Hmm. Seems to me that there was a period of androgeny, that maybe corresponded to the swing between them.

One of the things adults said (disdainfully) about the hippies was "you can't tell the girls from the boys."

On the corporate side, women dressed in a more masculine fashion - pantsuits taking over from dresses.

If there is to be a swing back from the femininity of the nineties - will we see a new androgeny? Maybe this time, it will be more like Marilyn Manson than David Bowie?

In between David Bowie and Marilyn Manson, you had Boy George and RuPaul - so this middle ground between male and female has never really gone away.

Anyway, it seems that the Last Man will not seek after excessive masculinity or femininity. He will be like a macrobiotic diet, neither yin nor yang. He will be balanced.

[Tomas]

.

Friederich Nietzsche - crazed supporter of Jewish Supremacism

"I am just having all anti-Semites shot."

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschech ... lett16.htm

Nietzsche Channel


.

[Carl G]

Oh fuck, Tomas is up to his old tricks, again, bumping defunct threads.

[Tomas]

.


http://www.discovery.org/a/5341

Darwin, Nietzsche, and Hitler: Evolution of the Ubermensch

Many folks just don't like it when you trace a revered scientific icon of evil. Small wonder. Too bad it's true.

http://www.discovery.org/a/5341


.

[Dan Rowden]

It's very difficult to imagine Intelligent Design protagonists saying anything that is true - other than by accident.

[Steven Coyle]

Geez hep cat Dan. Ain't nothin'. But while I'm here: Be sure to check out my Facebook account. "Steven Coyle - Atlanta, GA"

[Tomas]

.


-the water carrier "dippy"-
Carl G - Oh fuck, Tomas is up to his old tricks, again,

-tomas-
No, not really. Re-discovering Nietzsche - studying the fellow what with the published material available, are much more complete than they were in 1965...




-"dippy"-
bumping defunct threads.

-tomas-
Perhaps you have had the time to read (sponge up) all the threads' details, I've had but some 'scan time' for a cursory search and this was the better thread to place my two URLs for the genius here to read, if they will...

By the way, you were not even a member back then. Me? - I was but a lurker (the lone vulture) without a carcass to munch on... latched on a month or so later. Had a bite for lunch and still awaiting the main course.

PS - I'm expecting some of the old-timers here to come in with some tidbits of a working knowledge of Nietzsche - way past the father of nazi-ism newspeak I grew up with in the 1960s.

Ban the bomb before it bans us.


.

[Steven Coyle]

At the moment of "big dipper" intrepretation... I heard, from my dad -

"Oh, you mean the kittie bowl?"

lol. |-)

(Wooden & Ceramic cereal bowls all a 'round)

[divine focus]

From Chaos Magic on wiki:

One of the most frequently cited tenets of Chaos magic is that "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted," a quote attributed to Hassan-i Sabbah and used by Friedrich Nietzsche in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Like Crowley's "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law," this phrase is often mistakenly interpreted in its most literal sense to mean that there is no such thing as objective truth, so people are free to do whatever they choose. However, "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted" is more widely interpreted to mean "there is no such thing as an objective truth outside of our perception; therefore, all things are true and possible."

[Steven Coyle]

One meaning of the Buddhist reverse axiom 'Emptiness.'

[Steven Coyle]

...

[DHodges]

Many folks just don't like it when you trace a revered scientific icon of evil. Small wonder. Too bad it's true.

http://www.discovery.org/a/5341

Is there a name for this style of argument - "this idea is very distasteful to me (or leads to distasteful conclusions), therefore it must be false" ?

edit: Found it - it's called the Appeal to Consequences.