GENIUS FORUMS

The consciousness of appearance. How wonderful and new and yet how gruesome and ironic I find my position vis-a-vis the whole of existence in the light of my insight! I have discovered for myself that the human and animal past, indeed the whole primal age and past of all sentient being continues in me to invent, to love, to hate, to infer. I suddenly woke up in the midst of this dream, but only to the consciousness that I am dreaming and that I must go on dreaming lest I perish - as a somnambulist must go on dreaming lest he fall. What is "appearance" for me now? Certainly not the opposite of some essence: what could I say about any essence except to name the attributes of its appearance! Certainly not a dead mask that one could place on an unknown x or remove from it!

Appearance is for me that which lives and is effective and goes so far in its self-mockery that it makes me feel that this is appearance and will-o'-the-wisp and nothing more - that among all these dreamers, I, too, who "know," am dancing my dance; that the knower is a means for prolonging the earthly dance and thus belongs to the masters of ceremony of existence; and that the sublime consistency and interrelatednes of all knowledge perhaps is and will be the highest means to preserve the universality of dreaming and the mutual comprehension of all dreamers and thus also the continuation of the dream.


Nietzsche
Gay Science 54

You mistake boredom and having nothing interesting to talk about for needing something

Pye wrote:Nietzsche:...that the sublime consistency and interrelatednes of all knowledge perhaps is and will be the highest means to preserve the universality of dreaming and the mutual comprehension of all dreamers and thus also the continuation of the dream.

Diebert writes: Earlier I tried to describe the idea of "reality" being the actual consistency and relatedness of any collection of experiences. This then transcends any notion of dream or awake states since the dream state -- even if it would be more consistent and related to something -- would just be included in our reality as "real" (as perhaps it once indeed did).

Nietzsche then addresses the next question of what would be the point of knowledge and the question of reality in the larger scheme of existence and existentialism. Which in the context of the quoted author would mean the preservation of the human race since that has been earlier defined as the overarching mother instinct underlying every other activity we might imagine.

What does it mean to be human or race and what is trying to preserve "itself"?

Diebert writes: Didn't Zarathustra wrote as well: "what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going"? - Now we're talking!

Pye wrote:Oh, but life in any of its forms seeks its the promotion of itself in all the opportunism possible within every species and beyond them, too, if it finds better flourishing conditions. I know we should and could only be referring to the human question, but why? - why not see it as life-itself (without there really being an 'itself' or a central-reporting area). Life is about the conditions for life, life is the ising itself, and as long as those [conditions] are about, life puts itself forward, is drive, as drive, as both the thing and what it's doing. That, in my estimation, is what is 'eternal' about life. It cannot ever be about "a" life, but life. Hence, the necessity of death to its individual creations; just so it might always re-create . . . .

Bobo wrote:I will have to ask you Diebert what did you do for a living if you're okay with that. Or your take on existentialism is nothing but post-mordernism.

But shouldn't we go a step further and deeper and look forward to discover newer horizons to justify all of man's greatness and sadness? Horizons which can be put on maps. Horizons which can be sailed toward by actual beings? Nietzsche never could see much beyond the horizon of nihilism but he saw that one well.

My point is, there are a lot of people that don't even know what enlightenment is, most of the time you avoid this, saying how the main observation is impermanence. That is definitely a main observation, but everything being a manifestation of the mind seems to be a relevant one also, wouldn't you say?

Bobo wrote:

But shouldn't we go a step further and deeper and look forward to discover newer horizons to justify all of man's greatness and sadness? Horizons which can be put on maps. Horizons which can be sailed toward by actual beings? Nietzsche never could see much beyond the horizon of nihilism but he saw that one well.

The conquest of land is nothing but man's searching for something outside of himself. If there's a bridge, where is the goal?

Bobo wrote: "What is a choice?"

What if man is exactly that?

Pye wrote:Oh, but life in any of its forms seeks its the promotion of itself in all the opportunism possible within every species and beyond them, too, if it finds better flourishing conditions.

• Life is about the conditions for life, life is the ising itself, and as long as those [conditions] are about, life puts itself forward, is drive, as drive, as both the thing and what it's doing

Diebert: Ah, but aren't you here just exchanging "human blood" with "life blood", like a globalist exchanging national blood with blue helmets?

Diebert: Perhaps a stronger loyalty to self-image remains always part of the parcel, assuming the image hasn't come to us from beyond time or through time, backwards even.

Diebert: You are trying to define life here in an almost self-evident and circular way. Perhaps only because that's what and how we know stuff.

Diebert writes: It's important I think to get info focus what we think life is or whatever we think it is that we imagine to foster, put forward and drive on. It's the concern then, is it not?