Frank Kogan

Dogmatic systems are (at the same time) a bad thing because they shut down or obliterate the potential multiplicity of rival perspectives, either in the name of (politically convenient?) commensurability or else in the name of the intoxication of self-delusion. To repeat, the species needs this multiplicity -- including the war-bound incommensurability of certain key multiplicities -- even as the individual is drawn to simplicity and clarity, error-bound or otherwise.

What I called "truthiness" in an earlier post is any social attempt at combination of perspectives ("ideology" being one one loaded shorthand for such a project...)

What is the context of the combination of the incommensurable perspectives? FN is NOT expansive on this -- I would suggest for two reasons. One is that he assumes it will reintorduce dogmatism, albeit at a metalevel (for example: insistence on civil rules of engagement and debate and conflict secretly being a fatwa on entire regions of potential perspective); the second is a degree of political naivety, not really recognising the degree to which his own trauma of isolation, sour grapesing about community and greghariousness and "herd values", renders him blind to levels of social organisation that aren't the vasty herd-mass of the Dogmatic Systems and the Solitary Warrior Boldness of the Untimely Individual. (worth remembering: he had a pretty bad experience as part of the Wagner Gang, where he was beloved heir until he started jibing against uncritical Wagner-worship, at which point he was banished and pretty nastily vilified... He was strong enough to "grow" from this, it didn't silence him, but fair to assume it DID scar him towards group projects).

Nietzsche's question is: can we really assume that the Will to Truth is as Good Thing? "Is the will to truth by definition good for us" or ( to be rigorously perspectival about it) -- is the fact that a truth is Good for Me in this instance a demonstration that it's good for you? His -- very unsettling -- answer is: No. I have an anecdote about catastrophes on Everest which may helps open up how one person's perspectival truth is another person's anti-survival perspectival catastrophe -- which possibly illuminates this unsettling answer -- but posting this now as I just got a bunch of real actual urgent work put on my desk.(Apologies this is not a direct answer...)

*But "change in perspective" -- or perhaps better "change in perspectivity" -- is NOT easily won; FN believes we don't really significantly alter our potential for perspective without significantly altering the way we live our lives).