The Antichrist

[Arising_uk]

... I've never killed anyone. ...

In your work in aviation did you ever work upon military systems? If you did then you can see where this is going.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

[lancek4]

The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objectsYes of course: the one oriented upon the true object is the subject-object. From there all explanation asserts the true object, the faith thereof.

. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

[lancek4]

The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

You are arguing what I have said of you. It is not that I don't understand this perspective; it is not that I do not live my life along similar perspectives: as I say, the object can exist. I am not positing an 'essential' subject either. The discourse of such polemics, subjective or objective perspective, is not the issue; such polemics are firmly located in the objective, as you point out: having perspective on the object. I am not talking of a negotiation of opinions. I am talking about the reduction of knowledge: what ( ironically) knowledge (the object that is knowledge) reveals of itself when considered for what it is (which is part of the issue).

[lancek4]

So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

[chaz wyman]

So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

[lancek4]

So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

The ones about killing people.

[lancek4]

What is the relation between the weak perishing and what N says about Jesus and the gospels?

[SpheresOfBalance]

The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

You are arguing what I have said of you. It is not that I don't understand this perspective; it is not that I do not live my life along similar perspectives: as I say, the object can exist. I am not positing an 'essential' subject either. The discourse of such polemics, subjective or objective perspective, is not the issue; such polemics are firmly located in the objective, as you point out: having perspective on the object. I am not talking of a negotiation of opinions. I am talking about the reduction of knowledge: what ( ironically) knowledge (the object that is knowledge) reveals of itself when considered for what it is (which is part of the issue).

We've already talked of this, that any particular bit of knowledge is not necessarily aligned with truth and thus not knowledge, but belief asserted as true knowledge. Which is why I have a problem when people start foaming at the mouth, spitting out condescension, while asserting their particular flavor of knowledge.

To speak of somethings value, as knowledge, is usually relative, yet to speak of somethings physical substance, as knowledge, can be absolute, as with the definitions of it's constituents.

So what is this most important thing, that you see, that knowledge informs of itself, in your words, so that you may effectively convey?

[SpheresOfBalance]

What is the relation between the weak perishing and what N says about Jesus and the gospels?

So answer your own question, as you assert that it's different than what it says, show any particular group of passages from his mouth that proves your view, so as I can see that in fact they are not solely of your mind. Is it even possible that you can, and if not, then surely your take is an illusion, so that you can feel like that of an overman, as he primes those that agree with him, from his very first words in T A-C.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here is something pertinent. I just saw Agora with Rachel Weisz, I've liked her since 1999 in The Mummy. I think she did a great job in Agora.

Anyway, my point is that, as portrayed in the movie, Christians are much different of that day as compared to both those of N's days and our current days, such that I really see no problem at all, as to the average everyday Christian of today. Today it's about money and power and I see that of those in control, their religion matters to a lesser degree than the self serving power that they wield. It's not as to why they think they should, but that they think that something as hollow as money gives them the right and means too, and that people put up with it, as they are along for the ride, as long as it's not too bumpy.

The church, throughout history, has been proven wrong time and time again, such that it absolutely has to raise doubts as to the credibility of the authors of the bible. Scientists now believe that Ezekiel was an epileptic. I wonder what the color was, of the rye grain, as well as the stain and spore print of the mushrooms, that they ate, just to consider a few of the variables that would lend to such stories. Does anyone believe that today, anyone in power actually believes that, either they, or anyone in history, has actually spoken to their GOD thing?

[SpheresOfBalance]

So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

You've been unable to prove that they are, so what gibberish do you now spout?

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalquote="lancek4"]

The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves.




Here is the defining statement. Then see below....



We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

You are arguing what I have said of you. It is not that I don't understand this perspective; it is not that I do not live my life along similar perspectives: as I say, the object can exist. I am not positing an 'essential' subject either. The discourse of such polemics, subjective or objective perspective, is not the issue; such polemics are firmly located in the objective, as you point out: having perspective on the object. I am not talking of a negotiation of opinions. I am talking about the reduction of knowledge: what ( ironically) knowledge (the object that is knowledge) reveals of itself when considered for what it is (which is part of the issue).[/quote]
We've already talked of this, that any particular bit of knowledge is not necessarily aligned with truth and thus not knowledge, but belief asserted as true knowledge.


You have contradicted yourself. The only way to relieve this is to assert something in its place, as you do by asserting some absolute truth: that the only way to view oneself truly is objectively. But then I ask how do you do this when the manner by which one might view oneself objectively is informed by, as you say, belief. Again the contradiction arises, and so you look further, as if to find a more substantial truth that somehow is removed from the contradiction: so you posit an absolute truth of the universe that we cannot really know but may someday know through viewing evetything objectively.

This last, I ask what is the use of having a potentially known truth that is set in a human belief that can get no further that itself. Again you assert the objective universe.

So I ask you: how do you know this? How to you remove yourself from your admitted limitation of belief such that you can know of this absolute truth? How do you get away from your opinion ? Again. You assert the potential for an truth. You say education, intelligence, science and the like allows us to potentially know if the absolutely true universe.
And again I ask how do you get beyond the limitation that you yourself have admitted of belief. You do you discern belief from truth? What criteria do you use to segregate your false knowledge from the true knowledge ?




Which is why I have a problem when people start foaming at the mouth, spitting out condescension, while asserting their particular flavor of knowledge.

To speak of somethings value, as knowledge, is usually relative, yet to speak of somethings physical substance, as knowledge, can be absolute, as with the definitions of it's constituents.
And again: how are you able to segregate knowledge? How are you able to have a thought that is 'false' from a thought that is 'true'? What is the distinguishing feature between the two ? Is some of your thoughts (knowledge) soft and spongy and some of it hard and course? Please describe to me how the quality of the knowledge of a 'brick' runs through your ideas differently than that knowledge of say a leaf.
So what is this most important thing, that you see, that knowledge informs of itself, in your words, so that you may effectively convey?
[/quote]

I don't know this 'most important thing'. I am asking you to describe things so I might know as surely as you do this absolutely true thing Because from what you have been saying you have not convinced me. And I want to be convinced; truly.

[chaz wyman]

So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

The ones about killing people.

No, I mean which passages in N.

N never advocates that

[lancek4]

chaz wyman"]

So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

The ones about killing people.

No, I mean which passages in N.

N never advocates that[/quote]

Yes; They were arguing over that. I think over the passages where N says ' what is power... And weakness'. Or the passages suggesting he would help the weak perish , or sonething like that.

How do these passages relate to what N says about the gospels and Jesus ?