Appeals to nature are almost always an invocation of essence or timelessness, but this is completely wrong. The essence of this supposedly essence-bestowing signifier is in fact pure mutability itself, "nature" is the site from which all difference emanates

Will to power is exactly like the theory of natural selection in its apprehension of productive force as the instantiator-instance of the world, that is therefore specifically not bound by a binary transcendental morality or located within an "individual" and "its" being (because to think these things as coming-to-world or as relation-to-world is always an impoverishment). There is no relation-to-world because the world is relation, and therefore a-transcendental difference, itself. This is exactly the state of affairs in the way Bergson describes relation. A Nietzschian or Spinazoian cast of being is just where to locate and depart from a truly anti-anthropocentric ground for critique of the standard model of 'power' and relation to world ([ecology?] a model much more like the straw arguments bad readings of Nietzsche end up producing), where one can see the schemata in which umwelt/umgebung actually function, and where their telos of salvation falls away like antlers in winter.



[philosophy = will to sadness?, where sadness = immanent coming-to-being as opposed to the nihilism of happiness (understood not as joy or ecstasy but as the harvest and end of stasis or equilibrium or stupidity, and therefore a kind of death worship, or worship unassimilating of and threatened by death; death that is also the center around which it organizes itself but constantly ignores. It is the un-affirmation of its own object of worship, and maybe the genesis of neuroses?)]. So, philosophy as a kind of jouissance?


A god is a sort of gag, a substantiation of the incomprehensible or ineffable. God is precisely the externalized embodiment of an inability, and is therefore a sort of beacon or endless presence of unaccepted (or unacceptable?) failure. Religion, then, is a sort of twice baked systematized failure-worship, it is the worst kind of mysticism because it fails to even understand itself on those grounds... in this instance, actual mystics are much more honest, they don't require this second order that characterizes non-mystic religious traditions.