The Antichrist

[lancek4]

Ok. I would ask then how you undertake another persona in order, I gather, to understand anoyther person ? How might you suspend your ideas in the attempt to really get at another's ideas?

It's called acting. It is possible to temporarily remove oneself from one's thoughts in order to play a role. What one chooses to learn from that "role" is up to them.

Let me ask you this....how do you think Nietzsche expects one to understand him if they simply agree with him? He is not asking for agreement below. How can one dare have the 'courage for the forbidden' if one doesn't suspend one's ideas? Because....Obviously, the ideas we hold as ours are not forbidden...we own them.

The only ideas that can be forbidden are ideas that we can't allow ourselves to have. He is asking you to suspend your ideas in order to understand him and go where your mind has never gone before. He is not asking you to ape him...he is asking you to think what you dare not think.
Exactly. To agree or disagree is a condition of right and wrong. He is speaking 'beyond' this. He is not asking you to agree with him. That puts you and him in an arena of equality; he sprcifically decries such equality.

So, what is it you are 'daring' not to think if you are thinking that you are entertaining his ideas and weather or not you agree with him. I do not agree with him; I understand him.
What exactly are you daring?
I submit you are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opionion and 'daring' to entertain another one.


"The conditions under which one understands me and then necessarily understands -- I know them all too well. One must be honest in intellectual matters to the point of harshness harsh honesty to so much as endure my seriousness, my passion. One must be accustomed to living on mountains -- to seeing one wretched ephemeral chatter of politics and national egoism beneath one. One must have become indifferent, indifferent one must never ask whether truth is useful or a fatality.... never ask of truth to be true or false Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage of the forbidden; Courage for the forbidden. What Is forbidden? predestination for the labyrinth. An experience out of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for the most distant things. new eyes

A new conscience for truths which have hitherto remained dumb. A new consciousness

And the will to economy What is this 'grand styled economy'?in the grand style: to keeping one's energy, one's enthusiasm in bounds.... Reverence for oneself; love for oneself; unconditional freedom with respect to oneself ..."

[artisticsolution]

So, what is it you are 'daring' not to think if you are thinking that you are entertaining his ideas and weather or not you agree with him. I do not agree with him; I understand him.
What exactly are you daring?
I submit you are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opionion and 'daring' to entertain another one. [/color]

Well, I had never read anything by him....this was the first thing. I thought it was going to be more difficult than it was....that is why I asked for help understanding. I thought it might be about something I had not considered before....just because of the "build up". However, it wasn't anything that I dare not think about....because I lived and breathed these thoughts in my childhood. They are old hat for me. So I can't really say that his was something that I can't allow myself to think. But I will have to get back to you when I have finished the book. Maybe there will be a grand finale. You will give me until then before you jump on me like a rabid dog, won't you? LOL

I do find this ironic...you are doing to me what I was doing to N in the beginning of this thread. You accuse me of having an "opinion" about N...and yet you also are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opinion of me. Do you dare entertain another?

I am sure in N's day, there were alot of people who could not allow themselves to "think" about what he was saying to them.

So, I understand when you say you understand N. That is great. But it tells me nothing of what you dare not think.

Let me give you an example of what I mean....alot of rapists who are now in prison have been asked various questions about the morality of what they have done. Most are sorry that they got caught and are in prison but not really remorseful about the moral issue having to do with the actual "rape." However, during the study it was found that even though they did not think it was that immoral to "rape" the same criminals drew the line at raping their own mothers. It seems as if that is where their morality against such crimes increased to average ideals. Most thought it was wrong. They could not go there...they dare not "think" it.

So, what do you dare not think?

[lancek4]

So, what is it you are 'daring' not to think if you are thinking that you are entertaining his ideas and weather or not you agree with him. I do not agree with him; I understand him.
What exactly are you daring?
I submit you are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opionion and 'daring' to entertain another one. [/color]

Well, I had never read anything by him....this was the first thing. I thought it was going to be more difficult than it was....that is why I asked for help understanding. I thought it might be about something I had not considered before....just because of the "build up". However, it wasn't anything that I dare not think about....because I lived and breathed these thoughts in my childhood. They are old hat for me. So I can't really say that his was something that I can't allow myself to think. But I will have to get back to you when I have finished the book. Maybe there will be a grand finale. You will give me until then before you jump on me like a rabid dog, won't you? LOL

I do find this ironic...you are doing to me what I was doing to N in the beginning of this thread. You accuse me of having an "opinion" about N...and yet you also are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opinion of me. Do you dare entertain another?

I am sure in N's day, there were alot of people who could not allow themselves to "think" about what he was saying to them.

So, I understand when you say you understand N. That is great. But it tells me nothing of what you dare not think.

Let me give you an example of what I mean....alot of rapists who are now in prison have been asked various questions about the morality of what they have done. Most are sorry that they got caught and are in prison but not really remorseful about the moral issue having to do with the actual "rape." However, during the study it was found that even though they did not think it was that immoral to "rape" the same criminals drew the line at raping their own mothers. It seems as if that is where their morality against such crimes increased to average ideals. Most thought it was wrong. They could not go there...they dare not "think" it.

So, what do you dare not think?

I am not sure I am capable, in terms of what N is suggesting, of daring to think anything; I merely do what I do.
In this respect, I am not capable of entertaining any idea but my own. To assert this ability and behave within it as if it reflects an actual True method - this is to rely upon an ability to commune with a transcendent object: and this is exactly N point. to assert that I may be equal as a human to all other humans relies upon a transcendent moment by which I am able to 'step out of my self' an promote ethical righteousness through my 'opinion'. This moment, this movement, denies the Harsh honesty of existence.

[artisticsolution]

L:I am not sure I am capable, in terms of what N is suggesting, of daring to think anything; I merely do what I do.
In this respect, I am not capable of entertaining any idea but my own.

AS:Was the alphabet your idea or someone elses? Do you use it to communicate? Are any of our thoughts actually ours or are they a result of the accumulation of generations before us? You say you disagree with N....does that mean you disagree with argument or does that mean you are obeying his wishes to disagree with him?
Would you have been able to have these thoughts without N telling you to have it?

L:To assert this ability and behave within it as if it reflects an actual True method - this is to rely upon an ability to commune with a transcendent object: and this is exactly N point. to assert that I may be equal as a human to all other humans relies upon a transcendent moment by which I am able to 'step out of my self' an promote ethical righteousness through my 'opinion'. This moment, this movement, denies the Harsh honesty of existence.

AS:I have never met a person who did not have an opinion. Even saying, "I do not have an opinion" is an opinion. And why do you think that an "opinion" necessarily promotes ethical righteousness? I could promote just the opposite...but that doesn't mean it has to do with "right or wrong". As humans, we all have a tendency to see ourselves and our opinions as righteous. However, it is not impossible for us to see ourselves as nothing or no thing. Is a "no thing" able to "be" good or bad? I don't think so...I think it just is. If we "commune" with a transcendent object is it because we see that object as good? When we accept the "harsh" honest of existence, is it not because we think that is good? Does it not make us feel better to think that we posses something the others don't? To even say that communing with a transcendent object is an "ability"...betrays a certain righteousness....does it not?

[lancek4]

L:I am not sure I am capable, in terms of what N is suggesting, of daring to think anything; I merely do what I do.
In this respect, I am not capable of entertaining any idea but my own.

AS:Was the alphabet your idea or someone elses? Do you use it to communicate? Are any of our thoughts actually ours or are they a result of the accumulation of generations before us? You say you disagree with N....does that mean you disagree with argument or does that mean you are obeying his wishes to disagree with him?

understanding does not neccessairly denote agreement or disagreement with the assertion. Understanding denotes that the we have found a common ground of the issue. Until such ground is reached between parties there is no communication about the issue, for we are not viewing the same object of contention.

Would you have been able to have these thoughts without N telling you to have it?

personally; reading N confirmed for me that someone else has understood the issue. It may well be that his works contributed to the condition of reality in such a way that when I came into consciousness his ideas were a part of the condition of my knowledge, such that then, maybe I could not have been able to have these thoughts without him. But this question is speculative and highly metaphysical; the answer can not be come upon for any real truth except as I might need such an answer to justify my existence.

L:To assert this ability and behave within it as if it reflects an actual True method - this is to rely upon an ability to commune with a transcendent object: and this is exactly N point. to assert that I may be equal as a human to all other humans relies upon a transcendent moment by which I am able to 'step out of my self' an promote ethical righteousness through my 'opinion'. This moment, this movement, denies the Harsh honesty of existence.

AS:I have never met a person who did not have an opinion. Even saying, "I do not have an opinion" is an opinion. And why do you think that an "opinion" necessarily promotes ethical righteousness? I could promote just the opposite...but that doesn't mean it has to do with "right or wrong". As humans, we all have a tendency to see ourselves and our opinions as righteous. However, it is not impossible for us to see ourselves as nothing or no thing. Is a "no thing" able to "be" good or bad? I don't think so...I think it just is. If we "commune" with a transcendent object is it because we see that object as good? When we accept the "harsh" honest of existence, is it not because we think that is good? Does it not make us feel better to think that we posses something the others don't? To even say that communing with a transcendent object is an "ability"...betrays a certain righteousness....does it not?

All of these questions rely upon an equity of term and object. All propose a capacity to find, locate or otherwise know the absolute true object, and so evidence and advocate a particular method. This method conotes what may be right or wrong, true or false.

I return here to the quote I offered earlier:
a quote; sec 40. :

"their revenge took the form of elevating Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him from themselves...".

The point N is making is that Jesus was not understood for what he was relating, which was bare existance, as an unwilling venture. The Jews did not like this for his being caused them a certain discomfort in thier being, a 'resentment' of their being. This resentment (which means a reccurrence in consciousness) could not explain Jesus, that is could not explain, know or otherwise reconsile his existence with thiers; to bring in Kierkegaard here: he offended them. Yet because of Jesus being as he was, they could not help but have to find a place for him in thier reality, thier scheme of Truth; and so they 'elevated' him and thus separated him from themselves, posited the trascendant object of which he was a representative.

[lancek4]

The idea that I exist in a neutral space and that I get to choose what I consider to be right and wrong, good and evil, is an idea based in an ethical transcendance.

I ask: how do You take from yourself and distinguish what is 'your' thought from what are 'other's' thoughts?

Only through your evaluation of what iis True.

This type of truth maintains the transcendent object of the Other, and thus is based in a particular scheme of knowing [truth] which gains its credence through its own proposal of an absolutely objective existence. But not merely this; not merely that reality must be this Truth or another Truth: it asserts that its truth, its true method of coming upon reality is THE truth, so much so that one who is so determined by this scheme cannot but refer all Truth to its dictates: and thereby argues itself that what is not True or impossible is actually and for all time and space NOT TRUE.

this is so much tha case that even the manner by which the term 'Truth' is situated confines the constiuent to a particular state of Either/Or that informs the individual of the whole possibility of what may be true, such that he cannot but have a reality that is equivocal with existance.

[artisticsolution]

The idea that I exist in a neutral space and that I get to choose what I consider to be right and wrong, good and evil, is an idea based in an ethical transcendance.

I ask: how do You take from yourself and distinguish what is 'your' thought from what are 'other's' thoughts?

Only through your evaluation of what iis True.

This type of truth maintains the transcendent object of the Other, and thus is based in a particular scheme of knowing [truth] which gains its credence through its own proposal of an absolutely objective existence. But not merely this; not merely that reality must be this Truth or another Truth: it asserts that its truth, its true method of coming upon reality is THE truth, so much so that one who is so determined by this scheme cannot but refer all Truth to its dictates: and thereby argues itself that what is not True or impossible is actually and for all time and space NOT TRUE.

this is so much tha case that even the manner by which the term 'Truth' is situated confines the constiuent to a particular state of Either/Or that informs the individual of the whole possibility of what may be true, such that he cannot but have a reality that is equivocal with existance.

Well put. So, since he can't have a "reality that is equivocal with existence" then what? It is impossible for any of us to know if our thoughts are different than the others, because we can't be inside them. (Although it has always been a fantasy of mine that someday science finds out a way to allow people to 'get into' each others minds.)

What I am getting at is, just because someone has good communication, like for example N, doesn't mean that someone else who can't communicate well couldn't think of a way out of this problem...(.if you want to call it that)...if he could 'speak'.

See...our speech is designed so that in order to communicate we are bound by certain "right/wrong" rules. I don't communicate well because what I am saying goes out of the boundary of the 'rules' of language and I am too stupid to make my own language in a way that other people can understand. But even 'stupid' is not the right word...because it implies 'wrong.'

Anyway, all we can do is wonder if the other person gets us or we can "get" the other person. We can not know for sure we do. So how will we ever know 'truth' unless we know everything there is to know?

[chaz wyman]

The idea that I exist in a neutral space and that I get to choose what I consider to be right and wrong, good and evil, is an idea based in an ethical transcendance.

Surely there is and can be no neutral ethical spaces. What do you choose has to be based on your experience, motivation, emotional makeup and so on. You cannot transcend these factors you can only allow yourself to be the agent of your life by mastering those determining factors. You cannot transcend yourself nor your influences, as that would deny who and what you are; but you can assert yourself beyond the social demands of tradition, convention and life-denying Christianity.

I ask: how do You take from yourself and distinguish what is 'your' thought from what are 'other's' thoughts?

If you think it; then it is yours. You will know if this thought is designed to empower your life, or if it is borrowed and places restrictions on the progress of your life. N is simply enough talking about a wholesale rejection of the constrictions of his Lutheran background, which is a set of rules about what you must and must not do. N says fuck all that.
N is all about breaking free of Protestant ethics.

Only through your evaluation of what iis True.

This type of truth maintains the transcendent object of the Other, and thus is based in a particular scheme of knowing [truth] which gains its credence through its own proposal of an absolutely objective existence. But not merely this; not merely that reality must be this Truth or another Truth: it asserts that its truth, its true method of coming upon reality is THE truth, so much so that one who is so determined by this scheme cannot but refer all Truth to its dictates: and thereby argues itself that what is not True or impossible is actually and for all time and space NOT TRUE.

It seems to me you are making too much of all this. N has nothing to do with absolute nor objective truth. It's all about the assertion of the subject, and the realisation of the self.

this is so much tha case that even the manner by which the term 'Truth' is situated confines the constiuent to a particular state of Either/Or that informs the individual of the whole possibility of what may be true, such that he cannot but have a reality that is equivocal with existance.

Existence is the only truth. It's not objective but it is real. It's no wonder N was the inspiration for the entire edifice of Existential Philosophy.

[lancek4]

The idea that I exist in a neutral space and that I get to choose what I consider to be right and wrong, good and evil, is an idea based in an ethical transcendance.

Surely there is and can be no neutral ethical spaces. What do you choose has to be based on your experience, motivation, emotional makeup and so on. You cannot transcend these factors you can only allow yourself to be the agent of your life by mastering those determining factors. You cannot transcend yourself nor your influences, as that would deny who and what you are; but you can assert yourself beyond the social demands of tradition, convention and life-denying Christianity.

I ask: how do You take from yourself and distinguish what is 'your' thought from what are 'other's' thoughts?

If you think it; then it is yours. You will know if this thought is designed to empower your life, or if it is borrowed and places restrictions on the progress of your life. N is simply enough talking about a wholesale rejection of the constrictions of his Lutheran background, which is a set of rules about what you must and must not do. N says fuck all that.
N is all about breaking free of Protestant ethics.

Only through your evaluation of what iis True.

This type of truth maintains the transcendent object of the Other, and thus is based in a particular scheme of knowing [truth] which gains its credence through its own proposal of an absolutely objective existence. But not merely this; not merely that reality must be this Truth or another Truth: it asserts that its truth, its true method of coming upon reality is THE truth, so much so that one who is so determined by this scheme cannot but refer all Truth to its dictates: and thereby argues itself that what is not True or impossible is actually and for all time and space NOT TRUE.

It seems to me you are making too much of all this. N has nothing to do with absolute nor objective truth. It's all about the assertion of the subject, and the realisation of the self.

this is so much tha case that even the manner by which the term 'Truth' is situated confines the constiuent to a particular state of Either/Or that informs the individual of the whole possibility of what may be true, such that he cannot but have a reality that is equivocal with existance.

Existence is the only truth. It's not objective but it is real. It's no wonder N was the inspiration for the entire edifice of Existential Philosophy.

It appears to me that your statements are example of what they propose to rebut. Is this your intent?

Nevertheless;
I have difficulty in understanding how you reconsile determinism and the assertion and/or realization of the subject?
Does assertion imply choice and willfulness?

How does such an assertion occur? How does one come to realize its subject?

[lancek4]

The idea that I exist in a neutral space and that I get to choose what I consider to be right and wrong, good and evil, is an idea based in an ethical transcendance.

I ask: how do You take from yourself and distinguish what is 'your' thought from what are 'other's' thoughts?

Only through your evaluation of what iis True.

This type of truth maintains the transcendent object of the Other, and thus is based in a particular scheme of knowing [truth] which gains its credence through its own proposal of an absolutely objective existence. But not merely this; not merely that reality must be this Truth or another Truth: it asserts that its truth, its true method of coming upon reality is THE truth, so much so that one who is so determined by this scheme cannot but refer all Truth to its dictates: and thereby argues itself that what is not True or impossible is actually and for all time and space NOT TRUE.

this is so much tha case that even the manner by which the term 'Truth' is situated confines the constiuent to a particular state of Either/Or that informs the individual of the whole possibility of what may be true, such that he cannot but have a reality that is equivocal with existance.

Well put. So, since he can't have a "reality that is equivocal with existence" then what?
Well, I said "cannot have BUT ..." such a reality; but oh well...
It is impossible for any of us to know if our thoughts are different than the others, because we can't be inside them. (Although it has always been a fantasy of mine that someday science finds out a way to allow people to 'get into' each others minds.)

What I am getting at is, just because someone has good communication, like for example N, doesn't mean that someone else who can't communicate well couldn't think of a way out of this problem...(.if you want to call it that)...if he could 'speak'.

See...our speech is designed so that in order to communicate we are bound by certain "right/wrong" rules. I don't communicate well because what I am saying goes out of the boundary of the 'rules' of language and I am too stupid to make my own language in a way that other people can understand. But even 'stupid' is not the right word...because it implies 'wrong.'
I see this forgoing statement as reflecting a term/object equivocation. Language may have an implied intent in a social medium to be immutable in its ability to designate, as it seems you are suggesting here:

"I don't communicate well because what I am saying goes out of the boundary of the 'rules' of language and I am too stupid to make my own language in a way that other people can understand"

maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly:

it seems you are pointing to a set of terms that have fixed relations to objects: you go out of the boundary of the the 'rules'.

" our speech is designed so that in order to communicate we are bound by certain "right/wrong" rules."

I would say that this is a 'meaning' that you hold as true. And that such a meaning only occurs with reference to an extant that is not you. The 'right/wrong' is a qualification that is of your knowledge. But see that I am not saying that you are necessarily incorrect; I am addressing the basis of such a proposition.

You are refering to a supposed thing 'out there', an essential in-itself object. But this object does not exist except through your knowledge of it. You can refer to these 'things' as objects that are not you, but even this, this 'perception', this knowledge is only you having knowledge. You can say "but there is this thing right there in front of me" but how you may know it is ultimately of your knowledge of it.

So I am suggesting that while you may have experience of True things, these things that are not you, the knowledge of this 'not you' is a situating of knowledge. this situation designates how you will relate to such things; for example, another person or people. This knowledge upon which you rely informs you of how to situate Truth in lanaguage. For example, it leads to an assertion which is taken as false: that all reality and existance is really you. So, even though logically the conclusion should be true, to propose that it is indeed true is understood as rediculous: wrong, insane, absurd.

The real conclusion should be that the scheme of meaning is faulty. Instead, because the terms are taken to be linked to thier objects in essence, as if the terms actually do refer to the way things truly and really are, so likewise the proposition "I am all of reality" (or similar assertions), in as much as it is supposed to propose a situation of relation between True objects, is seen as false.

So, it is not only that there is some essential "speech" that designates what is right and wrong, but the particular scheme of meaning which informs this previous statement to its truth value, designates how statements may be right or wrong; in this case, that the mode of communication is taken as granted, as inherently expressing and containing a particular correct manner of the world.

Anyway, all we can do is wonder if the other person gets us or we can "get" the other person. We can not know for sure we do. So how will we ever know 'truth' unless we know everything there is to know?

The question is not of the Other person, as if there is this other person who is an essential thing in-itself. the question is what is it of me that is informing me of this other.

[lancek4]

So, what is it you are 'daring' not to think if you are thinking that you are entertaining his ideas and weather or not you agree with him. I do not agree with him; I understand him.
What exactly are you daring?
I submit you are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opionion and 'daring' to entertain another one. [/color]

Well, I had never read anything by him....this was the first thing. I thought it was going to be more difficult than it was....that is why I asked for help understanding. I thought it might be about something I had not considered before....just because of the "build up". However, it wasn't anything that I dare not think about....because I lived and breathed these thoughts in my childhood. They are old hat for me. So I can't really say that his was something that I can't allow myself to think. But I will have to get back to you when I have finished the book. Maybe there will be a grand finale. You will give me until then before you jump on me like a rabid dog, won't you? LOL

I do find this ironic...you are doing to me what I was doing to N in the beginning of this thread. You accuse me of having an "opinion" about N...and yet you also are staying very comfortable in your thinking by having an opinion of me. Do you dare entertain another?

I am sure in N's day, there were alot of people who could not allow themselves to "think" about what he was saying to them.

So, I understand when you say you understand N. That is great. But it tells me nothing of what you dare not think.

Let me give you an example of what I mean....alot of rapists who are now in prison have been asked various questions about the morality of what they have done. Most are sorry that they got caught and are in prison but not really remorseful about the moral issue having to do with the actual "rape." However, during the study it was found that even though they did not think it was that immoral to "rape" the same criminals drew the line at raping their own mothers. It seems as if that is where their morality against such crimes increased to average ideals. Most thought it was wrong. They could not go there...they dare not "think" it.
Let me enlargen this arena. You propose a man who rape some but will not dare to rape his own mother. This man is imprisoned regardless. Where he could not go in actuality was 'to not rape'; to him, it was not offensive and circustances could and did arise where such activity was warranted.

So let us suppose that this situation represents or reflects, at least in part, a particular scheme of meaning. The place where he could not go, the place he not dare to go, for his scheme was 'not to rape his mother', but in actuality, it was not merely this particular aspect (raping his mother) which was wrong: it was his whole scheme of meaning which granted him the sense of the world. The actual truth is that rape is wrong, and this truth for those who have it, prevades reality such that they would never consider committing any rape of any kind. The criminal did not have a 'good' part and then a 'bad' part of a True shceme of meaning: the scheme that grants him reality is a distortion. It was not the terms that he used to negotiate reality, it was his meaning.

Yet see this is only an analogy. The criminal is not able to have a reality that lets him know that rape is wrong in the way that 'normal' people know it wrong: he can only see the relation of his (sensible) activity to punishment, and so if any rehabilitation occurs, he will use new terms to reflect his (same/sensible) meaning (the sensible meaning that now relates rape with punishment, instead of relating of rape to disgust, offence and other fellings of reprehension).

[lancek4]

Perhaps we can come back to the text again.

What do you guys make of section 3:
"this more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deleberately willed."

[chaz wyman]

The idea that I exist in a neutral space and that I get to choose what I consider to be right and wrong, good and evil, is an idea based in an ethical transcendance.

Surely there is and can be no neutral ethical spaces. What do you choose has to be based on your experience, motivation, emotional makeup and so on. You cannot transcend these factors you can only allow yourself to be the agent of your life by mastering those determining factors. You cannot transcend yourself nor your influences, as that would deny who and what you are; but you can assert yourself beyond the social demands of tradition, convention and life-denying Christianity.

I ask: how do You take from yourself and distinguish what is 'your' thought from what are 'other's' thoughts?

If you think it; then it is yours. You will know if this thought is designed to empower your life, or if it is borrowed and places restrictions on the progress of your life. N is simply enough talking about a wholesale rejection of the constrictions of his Lutheran background, which is a set of rules about what you must and must not do. N says fuck all that.
N is all about breaking free of Protestant ethics.

Only through your evaluation of what iis True.

This type of truth maintains the transcendent object of the Other, and thus is based in a particular scheme of knowing [truth] which gains its credence through its own proposal of an absolutely objective existence. But not merely this; not merely that reality must be this Truth or another Truth: it asserts that its truth, its true method of coming upon reality is THE truth, so much so that one who is so determined by this scheme cannot but refer all Truth to its dictates: and thereby argues itself that what is not True or impossible is actually and for all time and space NOT TRUE.

It seems to me you are making too much of all this. N has nothing to do with absolute nor objective truth. It's all about the assertion of the subject, and the realisation of the self.

this is so much tha case that even the manner by which the term 'Truth' is situated confines the constiuent to a particular state of Either/Or that informs the individual of the whole possibility of what may be true, such that he cannot but have a reality that is equivocal with existance.

Existence is the only truth. It's not objective but it is real. It's no wonder N was the inspiration for the entire edifice of Existential Philosophy.

It appears to me that your statements are example of what they propose to rebut. Is this your intent?

I get N's outcome and aims (though think his caricature of the slave mentality is undesirable). I just disagree with his proposed method. You can't transcend yourself. You can overcome your social programming, and break free of convention, but you are still faced with yourself at the end of the process.
You can have goals and even supersede them but when you arrive, there you still are; un-trascended in a continual state of becoming.

Nevertheless;
I have difficulty in understanding how you reconsile determinism and the assertion and/or realization of the subject?
Does assertion imply choice and willfulness?

Choices and the will are determined too.
As Shop said; You can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will.

How does such an assertion occur? How does one come to realize its subject?

I said:"It's all about the assertion of the subject, and the realisation of the self." It's about acceptance that you are the channel by which all things are conceived, and the realisation that you are an agent that determines outcomes, not a mystical objective being, or the edifice of normative social programming.

[lancek4]

I'm not being sarcastic when I say: Chaz, that is a very graceful and concise synopsis.

More in a bit.

[chaz wyman]

I'm not being sarcastic when I say: Chaz, that is a very graceful and concise synopsis.

More in a bit.

Well thank you.