Dionysian, Comprehensiveness, Empowerment

In #6 of the 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' section of Ecce Homo, Nietzsche classifies "the most comprehensive soul" as a "concept of Dionysus".  Now, as has been previously discussed, in #257 of Beyond Good and Evil, Comprehensiveness is correlated with Power.  Accordingly, in its mature version, the Dionysian principle is transformed from a destroyer of Individuality to an empowerment of it, i. e. to a cumulative process, in which destruction becomes overcoming and retention, as phases of an increase in comprehensiveness.

Recurrence and Recursion

In contemporary Mathematical Logic. 'Recursion' usually connotes a repetition of relations, often by which a progressive series of elements is generated, e. g. 'is succeeded by' is recursive, since every new successor itself has a successor.  Hence, despite the etymological equivalence, Recursion is not to be confused with 'Recurrence' as Nietzsche uses it, i. e. with a mere repetition of elements.  Thus, the attribution of 'Eternal Recurrence' to the Self-Overcoming dynamic of the Will to Power is mistaken, since the latter is, more precisely, 'recursive', not 'recurrent', i. e. in that dynamic, every new level is itself subject to further overcoming.  Perhaps interpretations that posit that attribution tend to ignore that in the work that first unveils the concept of Eternal Recurrence, the fundamental principle is still the Will to Live, not yet the Will to Power, i. e. in #1 of The Gay Science, "the preservation of the species" is cited as that principle.  Instead, it is upon being affirmed that Eternal Recurrence is transformed into Eternal Recursion, and, concomitantly, Will to Live into Will to Power, and Man into Overman.

Overman, Affirmation, Incorporation

As Nietzsche characterizes it in #211 of Beyond Good and Evil, "to overcome the entire past" is to prepare for creativity.  Correspondingly, in 'Of the Three Metamorphoses', in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, that past is "in" the lion, the symbol of the second metamorphosis.  Thus, Nietzsche equates 'overcoming' and 'incorporation'.  Now, the final of those metamorphoses is symbolized by the Yes-saying "child", the image in the context for the Overman.  Thus, entailed in the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence, by which Man is transformed into the Overman, is the incorporation of the former in the latter.

Species, Individual, Overman

The neo-Schophenhauerian thesis--"The species is everything, one is always none"--that is the theme of #1 of The Gay Science, runs aground when the species is Man and the Individual is an Overman.  Now, perhaps, the principle also applies to the race of Overmen, or, perhaps, as some seem to interpret it, Nietzsche inverts it in the case of the latter, i. e. holding that the Individual is all and the collective is nothing.  However, in passages such as #33 of the 'Expeditions' chapter of Twilight of the Idols, and #785 of the Will to Power collection, the Individual is conceived as cumulative, i. e. as an incorporation of the entire species, if not of all the preceding species, as well, i. e. as the product of a process that is comparable to Darwinian Evolution and Whiteheadian Concrescence.  From that perspective, it is the teacher of the Overman, not that of the refuted thesis, who gets the last laugh.

Morality, Morale, Overman

Perhaps the decisive word in #1 of The Gay Science is "species".  For, in the passage, Nietzsche proposes a concept of Morality as a morale-boosting illusion that promotes the interests of the species.  In contrast, Schopenhauer's concept of it is as a moral-booster in the service of Nature, in general, i. e. of the Will-to-Live.  Furthermore, Schopenhauer does not distinguish Nature from its purported apex, i. e. the human species.  Thus, disillusionment for Nietzsche is not the anti-Naturalist dead-end that it is for Schopenhauer, but an opportunity to revitalize humans with an alternative that is super-human but not super-natural, i. e. the Overman.  Thus, #1 of GS constitutes an important step in Nietzsche's overcoming of Schopenhauer's influence.

Overman, Eternal Recurrence, Teleology

In #4 of 'Zarathustra's Prologue', in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the 'Overman' is presented as a goal to which Humankind is a "bridge".  Thus, the Overman seems to be a plainly Teleological concept, and Zarathustra here seems to be one of the "teachers of the purpose of existence" which Nietzsche laughs at in #1 of The Gay Science.  On the other hand, the Overman is a product of Self-Overcoming, the inner dynamic of the Will to Power, which Nietzsche insists is a non-Teleological principle.  Furthermore, according to Nietzsche, Man is transformed into Overman by the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence, i. e. by the affirmation of a thesis that mankind has no goal.  Now, the likely resolution of this apparent confusion over the status of the Overman is that that transformation makes explicit what has been implicit all along--that humans create their goals, a process hitherto hidden in traditional Ontological Teleology, a doctrine pioneered by the historical Zarathustra/Zoroaster, though more commonly attributed to Manes, i. e. the founder of Manicheanism.  On that analysis, a posited goal is not an end-in-itself, but a phase in the process of Self-Overcoming.  Accordingly, there is a profound distinction between a teacher of the purpose of existence and a creator of a purpose of existence.

Eternal Recurrence and Teleology

The original edition of The Gay Science, spanning #1 and #342, begins with a section titled "The teachers of the purpose of existence", and ends with, first, the introduction of the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, and, then, under the heading "The tragedy begins", the introduction of Zarathustra.  Perhaps explaining that arc is an assertion from #33 of Human, All Too Human--"mankind as a whole has no goal"--a thesis that in #34, he classifies as both a "tragedy" and a "truth".  Now, since Eternal Recurrence entails no privileged moment, it precludes the possibility of a goal.  Accordingly, the heading at #342 of GS can be interpreted as previewing Zarathustra's wrestling with the affirmation of  the 'tragic' Eternal Recurrence, in contrast with which the teachers of the purpose of existence are the comic objects of the "laughter" expressed in #1 of GS.  However, that does not explain why, in the same breath, he characterizes those same teachers as "tragedians", nor why, in the Preface to GS, he suggests that "The parody begins" might be a suitable alternative heading for the previewing of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.  Furthermore, the primacy of Truth, advocated in #34 of HATH, seems to repudiate its status accorded in 'On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense', plus it inverts the previously discussed relation of the Will to Power and Eternal Recurrence, i. e. the latter, as 'truthful', has become fundamental, with respect to which the former, and its Order of Rank, is a lapse into fiction.  Now, one solution to these glaring inconsistencies is to recast the Truth-Falsehood duality as 'more comprehensive vs. less comprehensive', in which case the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence is the 'most powerful' proposition.  So, the only source of confusion in the classification of Eternal Recurrence as an 'anti-Teleological doctrine', is Nietzsche's shifting use of the term 'tragedy', and, consequently, those of 'comedy' and 'parody'.

Eternal Recurrence and Language

One of Nietzsche's most important applications of Schopenhauer's system is not presented in any of his major works, but in his early essay 'Of Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense'.  There, he proposes that Language is no more than a social construct, a position that nowadays is classified as the 'Private Language Argument', thus predating the purported pioneering of the latter, i. e. Wittgenstein's, by several decades.  Of specific interest to Nietzsche in his subsequent works, is that this thesis entails that any verbal formulation that promotes the value of the Individual is inherently absurd, i. e. because its medium is an essentially social construct.  Thus, the target of laughter in #1 of The Gay Science, is not so much the Individual, per se, but language that attempts to isolate the Individual.  Likewise, it is as a verbal artifact that the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, as one of self-affirmation, is perhaps parodistic, as Nietzsche suggests in the preface to The Gay Science.

Parody and Evaluation

If, as Nietzsche suggests, in the preface to The Gay Science, that Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a parody, the probable target of which is the moralizing that he describes in #1 of the body of the work, then neither Eternal Recurrence nor the Will to Power are to be taken completely seriously, in which case nor is theorizing about their systematic relation.  Still, Parody has its own evaluative criteria, one of which is consistency of tone.  But, while the events of Zarathustra might have a comic dimension, Nietzsche seems dead serious while developing his theory of the Will to Power, proposing a revaluation of all values, and, especially, when diagnosing and fighting the concrete malignancy of Ressentiment.  So, either he is a failed parodist, or else he writes from a serious, more comprehensive perspective, the expression of which is only partly comic..

Eternal Recurrence, Will to Power, Circularity

Interpretations of Nietzsche that attempt to reconcile the seeming inconsistency between the concepts of Will to Power and Eternal Recurrence--the former produces novelty, the latter precludes it--by attributing a circular pattern to the Will to Power, founder on his concept of 'willing backwards' that he presents in 'Of Redemption', in Zarathustra.  For, there, Circularity serves as a heuristic device in which the Past can be conceived as the Future, thereby transforming the obdurate "'It was' into an 'I wanted it thus.'"  The concrete result of this transformation is restoration to Will to Power of healthy functioning, i. e. the Past is appropriated as a potential prelude to present creativity, thereby overcoming a powerlessness in the face of that obduracy that, on his diagnosis, degenerates into Ressentiment, i. e. "the spirit of revenge".  In less arcane terms, the process enables the possibility of treating an adverse circumstance as if it were an 'opportunity'.  Thus, the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence interacts with Will to Power only contingently, i. e. as a cure for a specific malfunction of it, so, the Circularity that it entails is not an inherent property of the Will to Power.

Eternal Recurrence, Dualism, Holism

The most chronic and prevalent fracture in human existence has been, in its many manifestations, the Supernatural-Natural dualism.  That dualism has been both synchronic, e. g. the thesis that a human is both incorporeal and corporeal, and diachronic, e. g. the thesis of the possibility of an incorporeal existence that survives corporeal death.  In contrast, according to Nietzsche's doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, "escape" from corporeality "is impossible", as he puts it in #1058 of the Will to Power collection, i. e. the doctrine eliminates the diachronic dualism.  But, if there is no incorporeal survival of corporeal death, then the ground of the synchronic dualism is eliminated, as well.  Thus, the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence does not merely approve synchronic Holism, as has been previously proposed here, it produces it.

Eternal Recurrence, Self-Affirmation, Holism

As has been previously proposed here, the 'theory of Eternal Recurrence', i. e. a concept of Temporality, often ascribed to Nietzsche, abstracts from what is, more precisely, his doctrine of the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence, i. e. a "teaching", as he sometimes characterizes it, e. g. in Ecce Homo.  But, the 'affirmation of Eternal Recurrence', which suggests that the Temporal concept is the object of affirmation, is still elliptical.  For, as is clear from The Gay Science, #341, that object is: the Eternal Recurrence of the totality of the events in one's own life.  So, the fundamental object of the affirmation is that totality, with respect to which the attribution of Eternal Recurrence is heuristic.  In other words, the rubric 'Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Recurrence' abstracts from what is fundamentally 'Nietzsche's Holistic doctrine of Self-Affirmation'..

Eternal Recurrence and Holism

Zarathustra's observation, in 'The Vision and the Riddle', that "all things are bound fast together", expresses what can be classified as Nietzsche's 'Holism'.  Now, Holism can be either diachronic or synchronic, and the concept of Eternal Recurrence is of the former kind.  Hence, the attention to that concept tends to obscure Nietzsche's  synchronic Holism, which he advocates from the outset of his oeuvre.  For example, in #2 of Birth of Tragedy, he describes the unity of "the race and of nature", as well as that of the individual, in its "whole pantomime of dancing, forcing every member into rhythmic movement."  Furthermore, Holism is central to the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, e. g. in #341 of The Gay Science, it is the affirmation of the recurrence of "each and every thing" that is in question, and in 'The Convalescent', it is Zarathustra's disgust at the affirmation of the recurrence of the "smallest" part of the race that is in question.  Accordingly, it is via synchronic Holism that the affirmation presents a corrective to the problem of Specialization, alluded to in 'Of Redemption', i. e. "inverse cripples", and, more prosaically analyzed in #212 of Beyond Good and Evil, as has been previously discussed.  So, despite the standard fascination with the diachronic dimension of the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, which, after all is merely a heuristic device, it is its concrete synchronic dimension that is more fundamental.

Affirmation, Denial, Approval

While 'to affirm' often means 'to agree with', Nietzsche's 'Yes!' to his life, to Life in general, and to Eternal Recurrence, is Approval, rather than Affirmation.  The distinction exposes a significant equivocation in Schopenhauer's doctrine.  For, 'to deny' usually means either 'to gainsay' or 'to prevent', and, hence, is not quite the opposite of 'to affirm' that Schopenhauer makes it.  Furthermore, when Schopenhauer argues that 'Life is suffering, therefore it is to be denied', 'to deny' means neither of those, but, rather, 'to disapprove'  However, in the 'self-denial' and 'denial of the Will-to-Live' that he classifies as 'Asceticism', 'to deny' means 'to prevent', leaving unexplained the transition from disapproval to prevention that is central to his doctrine, Also left unaddressed is whether there is a meaning of 'to affirm' that corresponds, as its opposite, to 'to prevent', i. e. whether or not 'to affirm' can have causal efficacy.  The resolution of that uncertainty is crucial to any interpretation of Nietzsche's doctrine, since on it depends whether or not his various 'Yeses' have causal efficacy, and, thus, whether or not the doctrine is merely an epiphenomenal comedy, as # 1 of The Gay Science can be taken to imply.

Eternal Recurrence and Self-Affirmation

Just as #342 of The Gay Science previews Thus Spoke Zarathustra, #341 introduces the central theme of the latter work--Eternal Recurrence--but with one significant difference.  While the later formulation is general, the original is personal, i. e. its content is one's own experiences, not a cycle of cosmic or historical events.  Thus, in the original, the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence is equivalent to Self-Affirmation, thereby resisting facile reduction to a theory of Circular Time.  It is also a reminder of a fundamental weakness in Schopenhauer's doctrine--the careless equivalence of personal Self-Denial and the denial of the universal Will-to-Live, an equivalence that is derived from his previous groundless extrapolation from personal experience to a concept of Life in general.  Accordingly, the Gay Science version of Eternal Recurrence opens a Psychological approach to the overcoming of Schopenhauer's influence, i. e. an exposure of the psychological roots of his doctrine.

Individual, Value, Laughter

While Nietzsche's laughter, expressed in #1 of The Gay Science, at the conferral of value on the Individual, is part of his effort to overcome Schopenhauer's influence, it is arguably antithetical to his own principles.  For, insofar as the Dionysian is a principle of Creativity, and to create is to create an individual entity, the existence of the latter is inherent in the principle.  On that basis, the devaluation of the entity is exposed as an expression of weakness and/or Ressentiment.  Thus, for example, since Schopenhauer has no ground for distinguishing general judgments from personal ones, his systematic depreciation of Individuality expresses only self-hate rooted in his sense of his powerlessness.  In contrast, because the affirmation of Life, the focus of Nietzsche's overcoming of Schopenhauer's influence, entails the affirmation of Individuation, it is an expression of strength, and the laughter that it occasions is one of triumph, not ridicule.

Perspectivism, Dogmatism, Oligarchism

A defense of Perspectivism that Nietzsche offers in #22 of Beyond Good and Evil is less impressive than he seems to take it to be.  There, his response to the charge that "'Every assertion is an interpretation' is itself an interpretation" is "well, so much the better", i. e. 'That is consistent with the principle'.  But, while that too coy quip might temporarily stymie a naive Realist, the experienced Dogmatist can persist with, 'Perspectivism has no grounds for making Universal assertions'.  So, the stronger Perspectivist response invokes Order of Rank, with Comprehensiveness as its criterion, for the determination of the power of an assertion.  While that rejoinder is unlikely to convert the hardened Dogmatist, it tends to force them to retrench to a position based on presumed privileged cognitive access.  That the debate extends beyond mere Epistemology is illustrated by how the retrenchment to 'revelation' by Heidegger and Strauss serves to buttress their Oligarchisms.  So, while Nietzsche's oblique style often serves him well, in this case the direct approach may be more effective.

Perspectivism, Tragedy, Comedy, Irony

According to Birth of Tragedy, the art of Tragedy consists not in the dramatization of suffering, but in the portrayal of the illusoriness of Individuality, which includes the illusoriness of the suffering of an individual.  Thus, in #1 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche classifies the Moralist, i. e. the serious teacher of the intrinsic value of the Individual, as an unwitting tragic hero, in a spectacle that is a comedy to those who know better.  Now, The Gay Science anticipates Thus Spoke Zarathustra in three main respects--1. #341 introduces the concept of Eternal Recurrence; 2. #342 introduces the character Zarathustra, under the rubric "The tragedy begins"; and 3. The formulation, in #1, of the principle of Comedy, "the species is everything, one is always none" foreshadows the subtitle of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, "A Book for Everyone and No One".  Thus, in The Gay Science, Nietzsche is wrestling with the ambivalence of his next project, and with that of his own writings, in general.  His Perspectivism crystallizes this ambivalence--as the assertion 'Every assertion is an interpretation' demands to be taken seriously, that it self-referentially undermines itself is comic, to which the Russellian reduction to 'logical paradox' hardly does justice.  Now, in #1 of the Preface to The Gay Science, Nietzsche briefly suggests that this Tragicomedy reduces to Parody, though that formulation seems too glib a characterization of the enlightenment and empowerment of Zarathustra's teaching.  So, a less strident characterization of Perspectivism is that it is 'ironic'.

Perspectivism, Egalitarianism, Comprehensiveness

Egalitarianism, a concomitant of social fragmentation, as has been previously discussed, constitutes a social crisis, i. e. incipient Nihilism, according to Nietzsche.  But, it also threatens his own diagnostic tools.  For, he advocates Perspectivism--the thesis that all experience expresses an interpretation from a unique point-of-view--which is, thus, in itself egalitarian.  Accordingly, without an accompanying Order of Rank, his evaluations have no distinctive value.  Now, as has been previously discussed, passages in Beyond Good and Evil plainly show that his criterion for Order of Rank is Comprehensiveness, and not market value or military capacity, as have sometimes been ascribed to him.  But, despite the continuing predominance of those adjudicators of contemporary Perspectivism, there are some notable examples of respect for his actual position--the appeal of advocates of Creativism to the explanatory power of that doctrine in the debate with Evolutionism, and the reliance of the 'trickle-down' model to demonstrate that Capitalism benefits more than a few.  Still, whenever one opinion is taken to be inherently as valuable as any other, egalitarian Perspectivism is implicitly being invoked. 

Comprehensiveness, Specialization, Egalitarianism

In #212 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche identifies Comprehensiveness, i. e. "wholeness in manifoldness", with "greatness", which he contrasts with the Specialization that is characteristic of a "world of 'modern ideas'", a problem that he addresses in 'Of Redemption', in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, via the imagery of "inverse cripples".  But, later in #212, the contrast of Comprehensiveness is with Egalitarianism, i. e. "equality of rights", thereby suggesting, without clarification, that Specialization and Egalitarianism are systematically related.  One systematization of them is that the fragmentation that is effected by Specialization eliminates any possible commensurability between the fragments, except for the trivial one, i. e. that they are alike fragments.  In that case, they are trivially 'equal', which entails that one Specialty has as much of a 'right' as any other.  In contrast with Specialization, Comprehensiveness, as has been previously discussed, presents a criterion for the evaluation of Rights, and, thus, for Nietzsche, serves as a corrective to Egalitarianism.

Will to Power, Order of Rank, Comprehensiveness

One characteristic evaluated by the Order of Rank that expresses the Will to Power is obviously Strength.  Another is suggested by Nietzsche's reference to "more comprehensive states", in his discussion of Order of Rank in #257 of Beyond Good in Evil, at the beginning of the chapter in which he explains 'What is Noble'.  Now, 'comprehensiveness', can be defined as a relation between a Multiplicity and a Unity, so that 'X is more comprehensive than Y' = 'X unifies a greater multiplicity than does Y'.  Thus, that a more comprehensive theory is often characterized as a more 'powerful' one suggests that Comprehensiveness and Strength are both not merely appropriate in an Order of Rank that expresses the Will to Power, but are equivalent, if not identical.

Will to Power and Evolution

The predominance of the more brutish connotations of the term 'power' has obscured that Nietzsche's Will to Power is a significant and innovative Vitalistic rival to the traditional Will to Live principle.  For, as governed by perpetual "self-overcoming", consisting in a "will to procreate or impulse towards . . . the higher, more distant, more manifold" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 'Of Self-Overcoming'), Life is essentially a process of Growth, not one of mere Survival, as tradition has it.  Furthermore, the process includes the "development of ever higher. . . more comprehensive states", i. e. the "enhancement of the type 'man.'" (Beyond Good and Evil, #257)  Thus, the Will to Power is also a principle of Evolution, one that is more inclusive and more consistent than Darwin's, which explains only some phenomena, e. g. the origin of a species, and is ultimately subordinated to the Survival principle.

Dionysian, Vitalism, Evolution

Nietzsche's Dionysian principle, as well as the Will to Power that is derived from it, can, with justification, be classified as 'Naturalistic', but the baggage attached to that term diminishes the significance of the principle.  Fresher, and, insofar as it is a Life-affirming principle, etymologically appropriate, is 'Vitalistic', which, thus calls attention to two weakness in the prominent Vitalism of the era--Bergson's.  First, while Nietzsche's 'Order of Rank' entails differences of degree, as has been previously discussed, Bergson vacillates in conceiving the main division of his system--Spirit vs. Matter--as sometimes a distinction of degree, sometimes one of kind.  Furthermore, while Order of Rank has no inherent maximum, Spirit is an absolute limit for Bergson.  Thus, the 'highest' can always be surpassed, i. e. 'overcome', for Nietzsche, but not for Bergson.  So, despite Bergson's well-known title 'Creative Evolution', Nietzsche' Vitalism is actually the more Evolutionary of the two varieties.

Affirmation, Evaluation, Order of Rank

A Morality founded on the affirmation of all Life is sharply contrasted with one conceived as a weapon of Ressentiment, especially since, unlike the later, it does not have at its disposal a ready-made basis of evaluative division, e. g. enmity.  Instead, Evaluation must maintain the presupposition of the fundamental homogeneity of universal Affirmation, within which distinctions are to be made, distinctions that must, therefore, be of degree, not of kind.  Accordingly, Nietzsche's concept of 'Order of Rank' spans differences of degree, not of kind, which the terms "higher" and "lower", appearing in #30 of Beyond Good and Evil, express more appropriately than does the "good" vs. "bad" polarity that he frequently uses, e. g. notably in #260 of BGE, and its continuation in On the Genealogy of Morals.  That polarity is difficult to reconcile with universal Affirmation, and in conjunction with some of his strident language, encourages the interpretation that he, too, conceives Morality as a weapon of Ressentiment.  Instead, since even Ressentiment is part of Life, it is affirmed, but is of a lower rank.

Eternal Recurrence, Affirmation, Evaluation

In the context of a theory of Temporality, that the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence adds one more event to the posited cycle is a perhaps fascinating complication.  But, for Nietzsche, who has other, more immediate ambitions, it presents a basis for a concept of the relation between Fact and Value that is an alternative to that of two traditional systems.  In one, Fact and Value are identical, i. e. Evaluation is a descriptive act, a status that is a significant ingredient in Supernatural Ethics, in which Value is ontologized, e. g. explicitly in Zoroastrianism and Manicheanism, and implicitly in Platonism and the Theology that it influences.  In the other, Fact and Value are radically heterogeneous, i. e. Evaluation is relegated to an at best subordinate function in a putative descriptive enterprise, e. g. Utilitarianism.  In contrast, for Nietzsche, Fact and Value represent a distinction, but one of degree, not of kind--that of a power relation between an evaluator and some phenomenon.  From that perspective, implicated in both traditional alternatives is a devaluation of Evaluation that exemplifies the self-denial that is a symptom of Ressentiment.  Similarly vulnerable to that diagnosis is the effort to de-emphasize the axiological significance of Eternal Recurrence.

Eternal Recurrence, Ressentiment, Empowerment

While medicine has an objective internal constitution, its effects can only be fully appreciated first-hand, under certain conditions.  Likewise, while Eternal Recurrence has an objective conceptual structure, it can only be fully understood from the first-hand affirmation of it.  For, it is devised by Nietzsche as an antidote to Ressentiment, which he diagnoses as the ground of the pervasive and chronic Supernaturalism, that is typically expressed as nihilistic denigration, if not as outright hatred, of corporeality.  Furthermore, since Will to Power is the fundamental Naturalistic principle, it is the specific locus of Ressentiment, and, hence, is the primary beneficiary of the cure of that affliction.  In other words, the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence effects Empowerment, which, as has been previously discussed, is Nietzsche's "gift" to humanity.  So, the doctrine that develops from that affirmation, e. g. the concept of the Philosopher as a commander, legislator, values-creator, anti-Christ, etc., presupposes that transformation as its context.  Accordingly, much subsequent prominent interpretation of, reaction to, and appropriation of Nietszche's writings, e. g. Militarism, Fundamental Ontology, Oligarchism, Egoism, etc., express untreated Ressentiment from outside that context.

Dionysian, Will to Power, Empowerment

In #211 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche proposes that "genuine philosophers" are "commanders and legislators", who "create values", via the exercise of the Will to Power.  In contrast, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he cites "gift-giving", or "bestowing", depending on the translation, in the chapter titled after it, as the "highest virtue", thereby suggesting the image of a philosopher as a source of Empowerment, and not merely as an exerciser of Power.  If he falls short of that vision in BGE, it is perhaps because there he abstracts Will to Power from the Dionysian context, in which the empowerment of any creator, e. g. the ecstatic state described in Birth of Tragedy, immediately and irresistibly prompts its communication to others.

Dionysian, Will to Power, Reproduction

In #9 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche proposes that Philosophy "creates the world in its own image", and is "the most spiritual will to power".  Now, aside from formulating his innovative concept of Philosophy, the passage also illuminates his concept of Will to Power.  First, explicitly, it is a creative process, and second, implicitly, its Creativity is a process of self-reproduction, as "in its own image" indicates.  Thus, Will to Power constitutes a variation of Schopenhauer's Will to Live principle, as well of Nietzsche's own Dionysian principle, of which it can be conceived as a Spinozistic Mode, as has been previously discussed.

Dionysian, Will to Power, Creativity

In #9 and #211 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche identifies Will to Power with Creativity.  Now, characterizations of the Artist, that he presents in #1 of Birth of Tragedy, such as "he feels himself a god", and "he is no longer an artist, he has become a work of art', suggest that the Dionysian is a principle of Creativity, celebrated by what are actually fertility rites, rather than mere orgies, which is why they also include "dismemberment into individuals" (BT, #2).  So, the Will to Power can be conceived as a Mode, in Spinoza's sense of the term, of the Dionysian principle.

Art, Artist, Dionysian, Will to Power

While the topic of #218 of Human, All Too Human is Architecture, the primary focus of #11 of the 'Expeditions' section of Twilight of the Idols is, more precisely, "the architect", and it is the latter that is the locus of the subsequent ascription of Will to Power.  This shift of attention is summarized by an assertion, appearing in #677 of the Will to Power collection, that "one must examine the artist himself".  In other words, Nietzsche's orientation, that begins, in Birth of Tragedy, as a "metaphysic of music" (#5), matures into the philosophical Psychology of the Will to Power, to which even Aesthetic Theory is subordinated.  However, obscured in the maturation is the role of the Dionysian principle as a trans-individual force, which, insofar as the object of Psychological diagnosis is the individual, is reduced to an intra-organic drive.  Accordingly, his later analysis of the Artist abstracts from the social context of Art, and, hence, from its communicative dimension, which explains, why the Architecture of the Twilight passage is "conscious of no witness".