Was Nietzsche wrong about Parsifal?

[Anonymous No.18947460]

>It is at this point that we must pass beyond Shaw who sees in Götterdämmerung, as Nietzsche saw in Parsifal, the betrayal of the hero, the higher man who surpasses present humanity; they both believed him, for rather diverse reasons, to be not only desirable but essential. Yet, was Wagner’s vision an abnegation of the higher conception, a reversion to the thing it had superseded, or a new and necessary superseding of the higher, which was still inadequate to the supreme purpose? In Zarathustra, beyond the lion which represents the superman, comes the child which combines both the will to achievement and the will to beauty, “ein aus sich rollendes Rad, eine erste Bewegung, ein heiliges Ja-sagen.” If that, indeed, was Wagner’s dream, Nietzsche could not complain, and Shaw would not; yet neither realized it.
>Wagner alone saw beyond — beyond the vision of both Nietzsche and Shaw — to a new form, shadowy, as yet obscure, visible in outline only, but still a higher form: the mysterious shape of Parsifal. Here is the beginning of the will to power and the will to beauty in the mystical union which is all-achieving: the man comes who weeps because he has killed a swan rather than exults because he can kill a dragon, who holds the all-powerful spear on condition that he does not use it. Shaw should have understood that it is possible both to kill dragons and to weep over the death of swans — in fact he did, at least in adumbration.

[Anonymous No.18947561]

You arrive at a point where you have to take but one look at a text to see it as either normalcy or brilliance.
This text says essentially nothing.

If you don’t understand it, you’re a pseud, and if you like it, you‘d also probably read esotericism, which isn’t supposed to be as much of an insult as it reads.

[Anonymous No.18947637]

Citation:
https://cosmotheistchurch.org/2017/02/14/intimations-of-cosmotheism-wagner-and-shaw-a-synthesis/

[Anonymous No.18947910]

>>18947637
>cosmotheism

[Anonymous No.18947934]

>>18947460
Where did Mosley write this?