Re:

Nietzsche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Fri=drich_Nietzsche.

Opposed to this interpretation, the "will to power" can be und=rstood (or misunderstood) to mean a struggle against one's surrounding= that culminates in personal growth, self-overcoming, and self-perfection,=and assert that the power held over others as a result of this is coincidental. Thus Nietzsche wrote:

My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all sp=ce and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that=resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on th= part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that ar= sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. A=d the process goes on.(29) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_t=_power#cite_note-29

It would be possible to claim that rather than an attempt to 'dominate =ver others', the "will to power" is better understood as the=tenuous equilibrium in a system of forces' relations to each other. Wh=le a rock, for instance, does not have a conscious (or unconscious) "will", it nevertheless acts as a site of resistanc= within the "will to power" dynamic. Moreover, rather than 1=ominating over others', "will to power" is more accurately p=sitioned in relation to the subject (a mere synecdoche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche , both fictitious and necessary, for there is "no doer b=hind the deed," (see On the Genealogy of Mor=Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morals )) and is an idea behind the statement that words are "sedu=tions" within the process of self-mastery https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DSelf-overcoming&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-esteem both animate and inanimate objects. =ot . The just "will instincts and to self-overcoming power" but also is thus higher a "cosmic&q=ot; level behaviors inner (even force in humans) acting in and were through to=be reduced to the will to power.

I wish there was a simpler way to say this! Krauss would be dismis=ive -I believe

Nature at all levels displays -evolution , self organization, self regul=tion, interactive creativity, sentience fundamental awareness) , complem=ntarity ( wave/particle, mind/body )

The problem with physicalists is -they dismiss this as mere philosophy -=Krauss , Dawkins, Cox, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others say -we have no use =or philosophy .

Dawkins calls me a " willful obscurantist . " At a lecture in =altech recently he said I was more dangerous than religious fundament=list . Part of me wants to let it go --there is no winning or losing here =

Will need your advice re Sept 18th meeting

I'm finished teaching my course and leave for Australia on Tuesday.=C24)

All love

2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
The Chopra Foundation http://www.choprafoundation.org/ http://w=w.choprafoundation.org/

evolution is only for living things. oth=r things express " change" , need not confuse the two.4>=A0 . I think the more you refer to similarities between =our views and nietsche schopenauer, the scientist, will =etreat a bit . I would forever banish the use of t=e word quantum. it is a math concept that is fact argues again=t your view. . quantum means smallest piece. ie digital, = your views are analog , wholeness is not quantum, 4p=A0 unless you belive that consciousness in broken into tiny pieces t=at interact, throw the word in the dustbin. Tell the s=ientists that you recognize that the term causes concern so yo= have chosen to abandon it. humility will get you far. =. your argument would be bolstered by science is only one method of unders=anding , mathematics its tool, . you are looking in rea=ms opaque to mathematical inquiry, . hope, for example. =its value, how to employ it, why. ? we wil= have some face time before the 18th of sept I promise you will be=well prepared. you can also ask them if anyone theyve ever seen on a=death bed, looks to mathematics for the answer. ::))