>
>Day Brown wrote to Mark Bloss about Wille und Welle
 DB> On 02-09-98 Mark Bloss wrote to Day Brown... 
 MB>  A classic Homeric metaphor is the "perfect resemblance of two 
 MB> relations between totally dissimilar things".   
 
 MB>  but the all too human concourse of the will itself.  The key to the 
 MB>  answer (why this comparison between the Will and the Wave is NOT a 
 MB>  classic metaphor) is the the Will and Wave are not dissimilar things 
 MB>  -but rather are precisely the SAME THING.  
 MB>  ...  Thereby, Neitzsche is not comparing resemblances between 
 MB>  two dissimilar things - but concluding that a wave in the sea is 
 MB>  PRECISELY THE SAME THING as the will in the soul of a human.  In 
 MB>  other words, the appearances of the world have become a mere symbol 
 MB>  for inward experiences, with the consequence that the _metaphor_ 
 MB>  (originally designed to bridge the gap between the thinking - or 
 MB>  willing - ego, and the world of appearances) collapses! 
 
 MB>  Neitzsche was quite fond of using fundamental anthropomorphisms.  For 
 MB>  example: "All the presuppositions of mechanistic theory - matter, 
 MB> pressure 
 MB>  and stress, are not 'facts-in-themselves' but interpretations with 
 MB> the aid of physical fictions." 
 DB> Pretty cute Mark. tanx. I havta wonder what Friedrich would have 
 DB> made of the idea of 'virtual reality' or a 'holodeck', or whether 
 DB> he had ever read the Bagavad Gita's idea that the world was just 
 DB> an idea or dream of God's.  From that standpoint, he is right on 
 DB> target- the forms we see are the *effect* of the software that is 
 DB> generating them in three dimensions.  therefore, whether the form 
 DB> in question is a man or a wave, at a calcuable integral of time, 
 DB> or the process over time of it's motivation, is moot. 
 Neitzsche is not making the distinction - but I will - that there is
 a "separate" reality - unavailed of our consciousness, objective to 
 our existence, and describable to a limited degree by our conscious
 mind; but there is not this grand illusion of our reality being a
 dream or a particularly clever holo-suite called a Universe, as such.
 
 We are, in fact, _real_, as real as it gets; and our wills and our
 consciousness are real too - just precisely the same way that the
 wave is real.  It; us; our consciousness, are a product of our
 Universe.  But what makes them (both our will, and the wave itself)
 "interpretations with the aid of physical fictions" is our own perception
 of what is real - not what is actual.  The world of appearances is
 not the same world as the world of actuality, or the hidden reality.
 
 Without our framework of conscious understanding - our Universe is
 nothing but a _thing_ without substance at all - existent, but thus
 only in the ethereal; without human consciousness - the Universe
 is meaningless, even pointless.  We have this enormous responsibility
 handed to us, almost unawares: to give meaning to our reality.
 
 DB> In both cases, I see a dynamic dance of the form adapting to all 
 DB> the other forms affecting it, and see my own ego, or that of any 
 DB> other man, as just part of the same vast sea of 'wills', all of 
 DB> us togather riding on the surface of God.  Where the world of the 
 DB> appearances does not collapse, is in the fact that the software 
 DB> that generates it does exist [god], and that each subroutine is a 
 DB> unique thought form.  If you can perceive that, you have an kind 
 DB> of 'appearance' that is inviolate and as Pythagoras suggested, is 
 DB> the true essence of things. 
 Well said.
 
... For best results, place this line at bottom of message.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------