"On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense"

Well, I think I'll need to read this one again before I'll remember any specifics but I did catch some key "concepts."
Nietzsche is making the statement that truth and lies are terms that depend on our acceptance and interpretations on a given language. We categorize everything based upon systems that we construct, regarding things we see as external and constant. This argument seems like a smooth blend between Plato's formalism and Locke's conceptualism. Nietzsche seems to making the point that yes, these things we name that are external from us may very well exist, and for all intents and purposes they do, but we conceive an abstract thing called language and put labels on everything physical and abstract, therefore we are completely dependent upon our conceptions, both new and preconceived in order to get the the base of things. At least that's my interpretation so far.
What we do could be seen as arbitrary since a fish or gnat would see things separately and if they had this thing abstractly named "consciousness" they would make a different language, with completely original systems and classifications, since it would be through a vastly different "lens."
He seems to reject both the empiricist argument as well as the rationalist argument; sense experience is subjective and abstract thought that leads to "proof" is comparable to a man hiding something behind a bush and suddenly finding it again, and then having the complete audacity to be genuinely astonished at what he found.
He also makes the distinction that what we dislike is not inherent in lying itself, but merely in the negative consequences that can happen directly or indirectly to us as a result of saying them, or i suppose unsaying them. We care little for the action, for us humans, it is only in the result, because this is what actually affects us.
"...Man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences; toward those truths which are possibly harmful and destructive he is not even hostilely inclined."

Man only seeks truth when it agrees with how he already acts or thinks, or when it provides "proof" of how he wishes to act or think. He dismisses any hing of "truth" that may disagree with either pre-conceived "knowledge" or "truth" that could be potentially harmful to his own reality, faith, or ideals.
This reminds me vividly of my uncle who discusses ideas at length about the pursuit of "true knowledge" which he believes that he has found in Mormonism. His discussions always seem like long, drawn-out apologies and thinly veiled attempts to validate his own counter-intuitive belief system. I never know what to say when this subject comes up. To me he blindly believes in what his parents told him was true and what has made him relatively happy. To him, my so called "atheism" is the easy way out, my "excuse" for not being able to live up to the intense "standards" expected of his faith. He admits that belief does not equal truth, but then turns around and tells me to pray to find an answer, which should of course confirm that Mormonism is correct and that if don't receive this confirmation immediately, that I just need to attend church anyways, live by the standards and someday this "knowledge" will come to me and I'll know that it is the only right way..... uh.