Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: About the Importance of Individualism

Expand Messages
  • sauwelios
    ... Against this, Nietzsche writes: The influence of external circumstances is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
      <pandemonium19@...> wrote:
      >
      > We all know today, thanks to the development of psychology, that all
      > of us are influenced by external sources all the time, twenty four
      > hours a day, seven days a week. But it's even worse when those
      > influences comes in our childhood, from our parents and teachers. We
      > are all educated in a certain manner so we could fit into society and
      > become obedient sheeps, a part of the herd. That is a most dangerous
      > situation and the downfall of humanity.

      Against this, Nietzsche writes:

      "The influence of "external circumstances" is overestimated by Darwin
      to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is
      precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from
      within which *utilizes* and *exploits* "external circumstances"--"
      [The Will to Power, section 647.]

      Most people's acquiescence to society is just as much genetically
      conditioned as your passionate resistance to it. Those "external
      sources" you mention, even if those are our parents and teachers, are
      much less efficient for our conditioning than influences on our
      *genetic* make-up:

      "'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man
      has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a
      blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together) -— I shan't
      contradict; but this intoxication has undoubtedly been *successful*.
      The 'redemption' of the human race (from 'the masters,' that is) is
      going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized,
      mob-ized (what do the words matter!)."
      [Genealogy I, 9.]

      Nietzsche says these things through the mouth of a "free spirit" [in
      the non-Nietzschean sense] -- "an honest animal [...] and a democrat".
      Nietzsche himself does not agree that this "victory" is final:

      "The two opposing values "good and bad," "good and evil" have been
      engaged in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years; and
      though the latter value has certainly been on top for a long time,
      there are still places where the struggle is as yet undecided. [...]
      The symbol of this struggle, inscribed in letters legible across all
      human history, is "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome": —- there
      has hitherto been no greater event than this struggle, this question,
      this deadly contradiction."
      [ibid., 16.]

      As Nietzsche implies in section 17, he wants nothing less than the
      victory and "unconditional dominance of aristocratic values, Roman
      values" [16].

      Cf. message # 72 and 138. In fact, I will here make a little addendum
      to the latter. In message # 138, I ended thus:

      "Nietzsche's undivided commitment to "Roma" (which he implies in GM I,
      17) does not lead to such a stagnation: for it does not lead to the
      Overman in the same way that man's undivided commitment to "Judea"
      would lead to the Last Man. Rather, "Roma" would tolerate -- indeed,
      perhaps even *sponsor* -- "Judea's" Yahweh as one "god" (ideal) among
      its *many* "gods"; under the condition that he be worshipped as one
      god among many and not as the One God. Thus undivided commitment to
      "Roma" would lead to a wealth of different human types, among them the
      Overman and the Last Man. It would *not* lead to a fixation of the type."

      I want to support this with a passage I found in *Umwertung aller Werte*:

      "*My* demand: to bring forth beings which stand exalted above the
      entire genus [Gattung] "man": and to sacrifice oneself and one's
      "neighbours" to this end [Ziel].
      The hitherto existing morality had its limits within the genus: all
      hitherto existing moralities were useful to *first of all* give this
      genus unconditional durability [Haltbarkeit]: *when* this is attained,
      the aim [Ziel] can be set higher.
      The *one* movement is unconditionally the levelling of humanity, great
      ant-hills etc.
      The *other* movement, my movement, is conversely the sharpening of all
      antitheses and clefts, abolition of equality, the production of
      supreme men [Übermächtiger].
      The *former* generates the last man, *my* movement the Overman. It is
      *absolutely not* the intention [Ziel] to conceive of the latter as the
      masters of the former, but two species [Arten] shall exist alongside
      each other, -- separated as much as possible; the one, like the
      *Epicurean gods, unconcerned with the other*."
      [Umwertung IV, 198, entire.]

      And there will probably not be only *two* kinds [Arten], but at least
      three; for who will keep the two separated if not a third kind of man?
      Cf. The Antichrist(ian), section 57 -- the warrior caste as a
      veritable "wall of swords" between the first and the third caste. The
      last man is not the chandala, mind you!

      "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests,
      teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
      together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
      pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts--the
      whole sphere in which the concept of "God" is imagined as a *saviour*--"
      [WP 116.]

      Cf. message # 20.



      > Indeed, humanity has already
      > fallen, but due to its own mistakes in education, some of the members
      > of the herd grow in certain circumstances that makes them different.
      > They wish for a change and set to themselves a higher goal than that
      > of the rest of humanity, and thus become "chosen people". Those are
      > the Individuals.
      >
      >
      > Let's start at the start:
      > Since we have no LOGICAL, UNAMBIGUOUS, SOLID PROOFS for the
      > intervention of god in our present world, then we must assume that
      > even if he does exist, than he is of no importance to us, or have
      > only minimal importance. Now we know that we are FREE persons who can
      > design our own future, goals and morals. We are, thus, Individuals.
      > Or at least, that's what we were before the development of modern
      > society, with its education and goals. Thus we lost our freedom, and
      > live in some sort of virtual reality, a lie, an unrealness. That is
      > to say "a prison for our minds". When in fact, we are supposed to be
      > FREE as an animal, without being pushed by others' wills. That is the
      > world we were born into, and society took away from us. Our true
      > nature is Individualism.
      >

      That sounds like Hobbes, or Rousseau. According to Nietzsche, it is
      never "every man for himself":

      "[W]e understand by the State, as already remarked, only the
      cramp-iron which compels the Social process; whereas without the
      State, in the natural bellum omnium contra omnes [war of all against
      all -- Hobbes] Society cannot strike root at all on a larger scale and
      beyond the reach of the family."
      [Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

      This implies that, even in that "natural bellum", there are still --
      extended! -- families. This is natural, animal: man is a social animal.

      But this is not enough for Nietzsche: he is a Statist, not a
      Libertarian (as little State as possible) or an anarchist (no State at
      all):

      "Be the sociable instinct in individual man as strong as it may, it is
      only the iron clamp of the State that constrains the large masses
      [that is, larger than the extended family] upon one another in such a
      fashion that a chemical decomposition of Society, with its
      pyramid-like superstructure, is bound to take place."
      [ibid.]

      And it is such a decomposition that Nietzsche sought to achieve. And
      that was not an aim he had only in the *beginning* of his career (The
      Greek State was written in 1874 if I'm not mistaken):

      "My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at an individualistic
      morality. The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd--but not reach
      out beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally
      different valuation for their own actions, as do the independent, or
      the "beasts of prey," etc."
      [WP 287 (1883-1888), entire.]

      Now these "independent" are perhaps your sovereign Individuals? But,
      as I said above, these are still part (and indeed, the *goal*) of
      society: they live on top of it, above the masters even, and
      "separated as much as possible" from the herd; but they are still
      "dependent" on the herd, and on its masters for keeping the swine out
      of their private paradise.



      > Why is all that important? All that was meant to make you understand
      > why does Individualism exists and why we must aspire to reach it.
      > Let's continue:
      >
      > The Uebermensch is a DEFIANT, almost MILITARISTIC, a BLOND LION
      > within the herd. One who lives only by his own laws without
      > compromising, one who hovers above society's muddy waters, one who is
      > beyond the reach of a normal human. That's the meaning of his name:
      > Overman, Beyond Man. A GOD.
      > As such, he cannot waste his life on the laws and morals of others,
      > and must be an Individual of free consciousness. He must be the one
      > to break the illusion of society and return to the REAL, TRUE WORLD.
      >
      > Therefore, all of those who wish to become an Uebermensch, must see
      > the truth of the world, and that is: we were born as Individuals, and
      > must become Individuals once again. Only an Individual can sprout the
      > seed of the Uebermensch from within him and truly become superior. A
      > true Uebermensch must be an Individual.
      >

      Nietzsche distinguished between the "ego" (which is a false unity, a
      form of atomism, the soul superstition, the thing-in-itself) and the
      feeling of unity of an organism. It is the latter which is the goal of
      what Jung calls the individuation process: the synthesis of the Self.
      Thus the Uebermensch is psychologically whole: see BGE 257. But note
      that Nietzsche speaks of "more whole human beings" there -- that is,
      he implies that such wholeness is *relative*. There is no such thing
      as the absolute wholeness or individuality (indivisibility and
      separation) you seem to advocate so passionately. Your passion for
      Individuality is a passion for Being -- a will to power. This will to
      power seeks to stamp Becoming with the character of Being. This is the
      highest will to power, and the highest kind of man will of course have
      this highest will to power. However, we may say that this highest man,
      too, is neither a Becoming nor a Being, but a pathos: an event, which
      cannot stand by itself, of course. I say the Overman is a (--
      recurring --) *pathos*, not an (-- individual --) Being.

      I like your description very much, though. Very passionate, very
      poetic. It also ties "the independent" with the "beasts of prey". My
      posts on The Greek State may interest you (message # 16 and 44 ff.).
    • pandemonium19
      ... that ... teachers. ... society ... man ... *successful*. ... is ... [in ... [...] ... all ... there ... GM ... the ... indeed, ... one ... to ... them ...
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
        <pandemonium19@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
        > > <pandemonium19@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > We all know today, thanks to the development of psychology,
        that
        > all
        > > > of us are influenced by external sources all the time, twenty
        > four
        > > > hours a day, seven days a week. But it's even worse when those
        > > > influences comes in our childhood, from our parents and
        teachers.
        > We
        > > > are all educated in a certain manner so we could fit into
        society
        > and
        > > > become obedient sheeps, a part of the herd. That is a most
        > dangerous
        > > > situation and the downfall of humanity.
        > >
        > > Against this, Nietzsche writes:
        > >
        > > "The influence of "external circumstances" is overestimated by
        > Darwin
        > > to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is
        > > precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from
        > > within which *utilizes* and *exploits* "external circumstances"--"
        > > [The Will to Power, section 647.]
        > >
        > > Most people's acquiescence to society is just as much genetically
        > > conditioned as your passionate resistance to it. Those "external
        > > sources" you mention, even if those are our parents and teachers,
        > are
        > > much less efficient for our conditioning than influences on our
        > > *genetic* make-up:
        > >
        > > "'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common
        man
        > > has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a
        > > blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together) -— I shan't
        > > contradict; but this intoxication has undoubtedly been
        *successful*.
        > > The 'redemption' of the human race (from 'the masters,' that is)
        is
        > > going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized,
        > Christianized,
        > > mob-ized (what do the words matter!)."
        > > [Genealogy I, 9.]
        > >
        > > Nietzsche says these things through the mouth of a "free spirit"
        [in
        > > the non-Nietzschean sense] -- "an honest animal [...] and a
        > democrat".
        > > Nietzsche himself does not agree that this "victory" is final:
        > >
        > > "The two opposing values "good and bad," "good and evil" have been
        > > engaged in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years; and
        > > though the latter value has certainly been on top for a long time,
        > > there are still places where the struggle is as yet undecided.
        [...]
        > > The symbol of this struggle, inscribed in letters legible across
        all
        > > human history, is "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome": —-
        there
        > > has hitherto been no greater event than this struggle, this
        > question,
        > > this deadly contradiction."
        > > [ibid., 16.]
        > >
        > > As Nietzsche implies in section 17, he wants nothing less than the
        > > victory and "unconditional dominance of aristocratic values, Roman
        > > values" [16].
        > >
        > > Cf. message # 72 and 138. In fact, I will here make a little
        > addendum
        > > to the latter. In message # 138, I ended thus:
        > >
        > > "Nietzsche's undivided commitment to "Roma" (which he implies in
        GM
        > I,
        > > 17) does not lead to such a stagnation: for it does not lead to
        the
        > > Overman in the same way that man's undivided commitment to "Judea"
        > > would lead to the Last Man. Rather, "Roma" would tolerate --
        indeed,
        > > perhaps even *sponsor* -- "Judea's" Yahweh as one "god" (ideal)
        > among
        > > its *many* "gods"; under the condition that he be worshipped as
        one
        > > god among many and not as the One God. Thus undivided commitment
        to
        > > "Roma" would lead to a wealth of different human types, among
        them
        > the
        > > Overman and the Last Man. It would *not* lead to a fixation of
        the
        > type."
        > >
        > > I want to support this with a passage I found in *Umwertung aller
        > Werte*:
        > >
        > > "*My* demand: to bring forth beings which stand exalted above the
        > > entire genus [Gattung] "man": and to sacrifice oneself and one's
        > > "neighbours" to this end [Ziel].
        > > The hitherto existing morality had its limits within the genus:
        all
        > > hitherto existing moralities were useful to *first of all* give
        this
        > > genus unconditional durability [Haltbarkeit]: *when* this is
        > attained,
        > > the aim [Ziel] can be set higher.
        > > The *one* movement is unconditionally the levelling of humanity,
        > great
        > > ant-hills etc.
        > > The *other* movement, my movement, is conversely the sharpening
        of
        > all
        > > antitheses and clefts, abolition of equality, the production of
        > > supreme men [Übermächtiger].
        > > The *former* generates the last man, *my* movement the Overman.
        It
        > is
        > > *absolutely not* the intention [Ziel] to conceive of the latter
        as
        > the
        > > masters of the former, but two species [Arten] shall exist
        alongside
        > > each other, -- separated as much as possible; the one, like the
        > > *Epicurean gods, unconcerned with the other*."
        > > [Umwertung IV, 198, entire.]
        > >
        > > And there will probably not be only *two* kinds [Arten], but at
        > least
        > > three; for who will keep the two separated if not a third kind of
        > man?
        > > Cf. The Antichrist(ian), section 57 -- the warrior caste as a
        > > veritable "wall of swords" between the first and the third caste.
        > The
        > > last man is not the chandala, mind you!
        > >
        > > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the
        *priests,
        > > teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
        > > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
        > > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts-
        -
        > the
        > > whole sphere in which the concept of "God" is imagined as a
        > *saviour*--"
        > > [WP 116.]
        > >
        > > Cf. message # 20.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Indeed, humanity has already
        > > > fallen, but due to its own mistakes in education, some of the
        > members
        > > > of the herd grow in certain circumstances that makes them
        > different.
        > > > They wish for a change and set to themselves a higher goal than
        > that
        > > > of the rest of humanity, and thus become "chosen people". Those
        > are
        > > > the Individuals.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Let's start at the start:
        > > > Since we have no LOGICAL, UNAMBIGUOUS, SOLID PROOFS for the
        > > > intervention of god in our present world, then we must assume
        > that
        > > > even if he does exist, than he is of no importance to us, or
        have
        > > > only minimal importance. Now we know that we are FREE persons
        who
        > can
        > > > design our own future, goals and morals. We are, thus,
        > Individuals.
        > > > Or at least, that's what we were before the development of
        modern
        > > > society, with its education and goals. Thus we lost our
        freedom,
        > and
        > > > live in some sort of virtual reality, a lie, an unrealness.
        That
        > is
        > > > to say "a prison for our minds". When in fact, we are supposed
        to
        > be
        > > > FREE as an animal, without being pushed by others' wills. That
        is
        > the
        > > > world we were born into, and society took away from us. Our
        true
        > > > nature is Individualism.
        > > >
        > >
        > > That sounds like Hobbes, or Rousseau. According to Nietzsche, it
        is
        > > never "every man for himself":
        > >
        > > "[W]e understand by the State, as already remarked, only the
        > > cramp-iron which compels the Social process; whereas without the
        > > State, in the natural bellum omnium contra omnes [war of all
        against
        > > all -- Hobbes] Society cannot strike root at all on a larger
        scale
        > and
        > > beyond the reach of the family."
        > > [Nietzsche, The Greek State.]
        > >
        > > This implies that, even in that "natural bellum", there are
        still --
        > > extended! -- families. This is natural, animal: man is a social
        > animal.
        > >
        > > But this is not enough for Nietzsche: he is a Statist, not a
        > > Libertarian (as little State as possible) or an anarchist (no
        State
        > at
        > > all):
        > >
        > > "Be the sociable instinct in individual man as strong as it may,
        it
        > is
        > > only the iron clamp of the State that constrains the large masses
        > > [that is, larger than the extended family] upon one another in
        such
        > a
        > > fashion that a chemical decomposition of Society, with its
        > > pyramid-like superstructure, is bound to take place."
        > > [ibid.]
        > >
        > > And it is such a decomposition that Nietzsche sought to achieve.
        And
        > > that was not an aim he had only in the *beginning* of his career
        > (The
        > > Greek State was written in 1874 if I'm not mistaken):
        > >
        > > "My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at an
        > individualistic
        > > morality. The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd--but not
        > reach
        > > out beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally
        > > different valuation for their own actions, as do the independent,
        or
        > > the "beasts of prey," etc."
        > > [WP 287 (1883-1888), entire.]
        > >
        > > Now these "independent" are perhaps your sovereign Individuals?
        But,
        > > as I said above, these are still part (and indeed, the *goal*) of
        > > society: they live on top of it, above the masters even, and
        > > "separated as much as possible" from the herd; but they are still
        > > "dependent" on the herd, and on its masters for keeping the swine
        > out
        > > of their private paradise.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Why is all that important? All that was meant to make you
        > understand
        > > > why does Individualism exists and why we must aspire to reach
        it.
        > > > Let's continue:
        > > >
        > > > The Uebermensch is a DEFIANT, almost MILITARISTIC, a BLOND LION
        > > > within the herd. One who lives only by his own laws without
        > > > compromising, one who hovers above society's muddy waters, one
        > who is
        > > > beyond the reach of a normal human. That's the meaning of his
        > name:
        > > > Overman, Beyond Man. A GOD.
        > > > As such, he cannot waste his life on the laws and morals of
        > others,
        > > > and must be an Individual of free consciousness. He must be the
        > one
        > > > to break the illusion of society and return to the REAL, TRUE
        > WORLD.
        > > >
        > > > Therefore, all of those who wish to become an Uebermensch, must
        > see
        > > > the truth of the world, and that is: we were born as
        Individuals,
        > and
        > > > must become Individuals once again. Only an Individual can
        sprout
        > the
        > > > seed of the Uebermensch from within him and truly become
        > superior. A
        > > > true Uebermensch must be an Individual.
        > > >
        > >
        > > Nietzsche distinguished between the "ego" (which is a false
        unity, a
        > > form of atomism, the soul superstition, the thing-in-itself) and
        the
        > > feeling of unity of an organism. It is the latter which is the
        goal
        > of
        > > what Jung calls the individuation process: the synthesis of the
        > Self.
        > > Thus the Uebermensch is psychologically whole: see BGE 257. But
        note
        > > that Nietzsche speaks of "more whole human beings" there -- that
        is,
        > > he implies that such wholeness is *relative*. There is no such
        thing
        > > as the absolute wholeness or individuality (indivisibility and
        > > separation) you seem to advocate so passionately. Your passion for
        > > Individuality is a passion for Being -- a will to power. This
        will
        > to
        > > power seeks to stamp Becoming with the character of Being. This
        is
        > the
        > > highest will to power, and the highest kind of man will of course
        > have
        > > this highest will to power. However, we may say that this highest
        > man,
        > > too, is neither a Becoming nor a Being, but a pathos: an event,
        > which
        > > cannot stand by itself, of course. I say the Overman is a (--
        > > recurring --) *pathos*, not an (-- individual --) Being.
        > >
        > > I like your description very much, though. Very passionate, very
        > > poetic. It also ties "the independent" with the "beasts of prey".
        My
        > > posts on The Greek State may interest you (message # 16 and 44
        ff.).
        > >
        >



        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
        > <pandemonium19@> wrote:
        > >
        > > We all know today, thanks to the development of psychology, that
        all
        > > of us are influenced by external sources all the time, twenty
        four
        > > hours a day, seven days a week. But it's even worse when those
        > > influences comes in our childhood, from our parents and teachers.
        We
        > > are all educated in a certain manner so we could fit into society
        and
        > > become obedient sheeps, a part of the herd. That is a most
        dangerous
        > > situation and the downfall of humanity.
        >
        > Against this, Nietzsche writes:
        >
        > "The influence of "external circumstances" is overestimated by
        Darwin
        > to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is
        > precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from
        > within which *utilizes* and *exploits* "external circumstances"--"
        > [The Will to Power, section 647.]
        >
        > Most people's acquiescence to society is just as much genetically
        > conditioned as your passionate resistance to it. Those "external
        > sources" you mention, even if those are our parents and teachers,
        are
        > much less efficient for our conditioning than influences on our
        > *genetic* make-up:
        >
        > "'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man
        > has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a
        > blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together) -— I shan't
        > contradict; but this intoxication has undoubtedly been *successful*.
        > The 'redemption' of the human race (from 'the masters,' that is) is
        > going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized,
        Christianized,
        > mob-ized (what do the words matter!)."
        > [Genealogy I, 9.]
        >
        > Nietzsche says these things through the mouth of a "free spirit" [in
        > the non-Nietzschean sense] -- "an honest animal [...] and a
        democrat".
        > Nietzsche himself does not agree that this "victory" is final:
        >
        > "The two opposing values "good and bad," "good and evil" have been
        > engaged in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years; and
        > though the latter value has certainly been on top for a long time,
        > there are still places where the struggle is as yet undecided. [...]
        > The symbol of this struggle, inscribed in letters legible across all
        > human history, is "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome": —- there
        > has hitherto been no greater event than this struggle, this
        question,
        > this deadly contradiction."
        > [ibid., 16.]
        >
        > As Nietzsche implies in section 17, he wants nothing less than the
        > victory and "unconditional dominance of aristocratic values, Roman
        > values" [16].
        >
        > Cf. message # 72 and 138. In fact, I will here make a little
        addendum
        > to the latter. In message # 138, I ended thus:
        >
        > "Nietzsche's undivided commitment to "Roma" (which he implies in GM
        I,
        > 17) does not lead to such a stagnation: for it does not lead to the
        > Overman in the same way that man's undivided commitment to "Judea"
        > would lead to the Last Man. Rather, "Roma" would tolerate -- indeed,
        > perhaps even *sponsor* -- "Judea's" Yahweh as one "god" (ideal)
        among
        > its *many* "gods"; under the condition that he be worshipped as one
        > god among many and not as the One God. Thus undivided commitment to
        > "Roma" would lead to a wealth of different human types, among them
        the
        > Overman and the Last Man. It would *not* lead to a fixation of the
        type."
        >
        > I want to support this with a passage I found in *Umwertung aller
        Werte*:
        >
        > "*My* demand: to bring forth beings which stand exalted above the
        > entire genus [Gattung] "man": and to sacrifice oneself and one's
        > "neighbours" to this end [Ziel].
        > The hitherto existing morality had its limits within the genus: all
        > hitherto existing moralities were useful to *first of all* give this
        > genus unconditional durability [Haltbarkeit]: *when* this is
        attained,
        > the aim [Ziel] can be set higher.
        > The *one* movement is unconditionally the levelling of humanity,
        great
        > ant-hills etc.
        > The *other* movement, my movement, is conversely the sharpening of
        all
        > antitheses and clefts, abolition of equality, the production of
        > supreme men [Übermächtiger].
        > The *former* generates the last man, *my* movement the Overman. It
        is
        > *absolutely not* the intention [Ziel] to conceive of the latter as
        the
        > masters of the former, but two species [Arten] shall exist alongside
        > each other, -- separated as much as possible; the one, like the
        > *Epicurean gods, unconcerned with the other*."
        > [Umwertung IV, 198, entire.]
        >
        > And there will probably not be only *two* kinds [Arten], but at
        least
        > three; for who will keep the two separated if not a third kind of
        man?
        > Cf. The Antichrist(ian), section 57 -- the warrior caste as a
        > veritable "wall of swords" between the first and the third caste.
        The
        > last man is not the chandala, mind you!
        >
        > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests,
        > teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
        > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
        > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts--
        the
        > whole sphere in which the concept of "God" is imagined as a
        *saviour*--"
        > [WP 116.]
        >
        > Cf. message # 20.
        >
        >
        >
        > > Indeed, humanity has already
        > > fallen, but due to its own mistakes in education, some of the
        members
        > > of the herd grow in certain circumstances that makes them
        different.
        > > They wish for a change and set to themselves a higher goal than
        that
        > > of the rest of humanity, and thus become "chosen people". Those
        are
        > > the Individuals.
        > >
        > >
        > > Let's start at the start:
        > > Since we have no LOGICAL, UNAMBIGUOUS, SOLID PROOFS for the
        > > intervention of god in our present world, then we must assume
        that
        > > even if he does exist, than he is of no importance to us, or have
        > > only minimal importance. Now we know that we are FREE persons who
        can
        > > design our own future, goals and morals. We are, thus,
        Individuals.
        > > Or at least, that's what we were before the development of modern
        > > society, with its education and goals. Thus we lost our freedom,
        and
        > > live in some sort of virtual reality, a lie, an unrealness. That
        is
        > > to say "a prison for our minds". When in fact, we are supposed to
        be
        > > FREE as an animal, without being pushed by others' wills. That is
        the
        > > world we were born into, and society took away from us. Our true
        > > nature is Individualism.
        > >
        >
        > That sounds like Hobbes, or Rousseau. According to Nietzsche, it is
        > never "every man for himself":
        >
        > "[W]e understand by the State, as already remarked, only the
        > cramp-iron which compels the Social process; whereas without the
        > State, in the natural bellum omnium contra omnes [war of all against
        > all -- Hobbes] Society cannot strike root at all on a larger scale
        and
        > beyond the reach of the family."
        > [Nietzsche, The Greek State.]
        >
        > This implies that, even in that "natural bellum", there are still --
        > extended! -- families. This is natural, animal: man is a social
        animal.
        >
        > But this is not enough for Nietzsche: he is a Statist, not a
        > Libertarian (as little State as possible) or an anarchist (no State
        at
        > all):
        >
        > "Be the sociable instinct in individual man as strong as it may, it
        is
        > only the iron clamp of the State that constrains the large masses
        > [that is, larger than the extended family] upon one another in such
        a
        > fashion that a chemical decomposition of Society, with its
        > pyramid-like superstructure, is bound to take place."
        > [ibid.]
        >
        > And it is such a decomposition that Nietzsche sought to achieve. And
        > that was not an aim he had only in the *beginning* of his career
        (The
        > Greek State was written in 1874 if I'm not mistaken):
        >
        > "My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at an
        individualistic
        > morality. The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd--but not
        reach
        > out beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally
        > different valuation for their own actions, as do the independent, or
        > the "beasts of prey," etc."
        > [WP 287 (1883-1888), entire.]
        >
        > Now these "independent" are perhaps your sovereign Individuals? But,
        > as I said above, these are still part (and indeed, the *goal*) of
        > society: they live on top of it, above the masters even, and
        > "separated as much as possible" from the herd; but they are still
        > "dependent" on the herd, and on its masters for keeping the swine
        out
        > of their private paradise.
        >
        >
        >
        > > Why is all that important? All that was meant to make you
        understand
        > > why does Individualism exists and why we must aspire to reach it.
        > > Let's continue:
        > >
        > > The Uebermensch is a DEFIANT, almost MILITARISTIC, a BLOND LION
        > > within the herd. One who lives only by his own laws without
        > > compromising, one who hovers above society's muddy waters, one
        who is
        > > beyond the reach of a normal human. That's the meaning of his
        name:
        > > Overman, Beyond Man. A GOD.
        > > As such, he cannot waste his life on the laws and morals of
        others,
        > > and must be an Individual of free consciousness. He must be the
        one
        > > to break the illusion of society and return to the REAL, TRUE
        WORLD.
        > >
        > > Therefore, all of those who wish to become an Uebermensch, must
        see
        > > the truth of the world, and that is: we were born as Individuals,
        and
        > > must become Individuals once again. Only an Individual can sprout
        the
        > > seed of the Uebermensch from within him and truly become
        superior. A
        > > true Uebermensch must be an Individual.
        > >
        >
        > Nietzsche distinguished between the "ego" (which is a false unity, a
        > form of atomism, the soul superstition, the thing-in-itself) and the
        > feeling of unity of an organism. It is the latter which is the goal
        of
        > what Jung calls the individuation process: the synthesis of the
        Self.
        > Thus the Uebermensch is psychologically whole: see BGE 257. But note
        > that Nietzsche speaks of "more whole human beings" there -- that is,
        > he implies that such wholeness is *relative*. There is no such thing
        > as the absolute wholeness or individuality (indivisibility and
        > separation) you seem to advocate so passionately. Your passion for
        > Individuality is a passion for Being -- a will to power. This will
        to
        > power seeks to stamp Becoming with the character of Being. This is
        the
        > highest will to power, and the highest kind of man will of course
        have
        > this highest will to power. However, we may say that this highest
        man,
        > too, is neither a Becoming nor a Being, but a pathos: an event,
        which
        > cannot stand by itself, of course. I say the Overman is a (--
        > recurring --) *pathos*, not an (-- individual --) Being.
        >
        > I like your description very much, though. Very passionate, very
        > poetic. It also ties "the independent" with the "beasts of prey". My
        > posts on The Greek State may interest you (message # 16 and 44 ff.).
        >



        There are a fue things I would like to comment about before we
        continue this debate:

        First of all, as Nietzsche himself says, through the lips of his
        prophet Zarathustra, one should count on the teacher only to some
        certain extent, and must live him at a certain point. I'm sorry for
        not remembering the exact quote. So I recommand not quoting Nietzsche
        like this all the time, but instead just learn from him and let go,
        and think a bit for ourselves. Nietzsche is my firm base, but we are
        two different people with different opinions.

        Second, about The Will to Power, it should be remembered that this is
        the last of Nietzsche's books and was published only after his death,
        and after editing by his anti-semitic sister. Most agree that this
        book is not original Nietzsche opinions and philosophy and do take to
        account that it was changed before publishing by anti-semitic
        factors, oppossed to Nietzsche, who was not racial at all. So I would
        take all that is written in The Will to Power with a grain of salt.


        And for my answer itself:
        I am not an Anarchist and of course support the State and what you
        said about the Individuals: they should certainly be part of the
        society, but live on top of it. They are kind of...I don't want to
        say "shepherds", because their duty is not necessarily to lead the
        herd, but they are part of society without being part of the herd.
        They differ, they live in society, but not under its laws and morals,
        or habits. And most importantly: and Individual is deffinitly NOT an
        Uebermensch, but only a goal on the way to it.
        An Individual is not one who acts only for himself while hurting
        others, but rather a person that puts his own goals and wills at
        first place and manages to accomplish them without hurting others on
        the way. As you said, that is the Will to Power: not only the will to
        live or survive, but the will to become sonething greater than just a
        living being, the will to become enable to achieve one's goals and
        defeat the will to achieve the goals of others.
        An Individual does not act outside society, but above it. It acts out
        of the herd and out of the herd-mind, but also nakes a part of
        society.


        Hope that's clearer now, and I will look for your posts about The
        Greek State.
      • sauwelios
        First off, I deleted message # 159, as there was nothing new in it. A mistake on your part, I guess. ... And different customs. My custom, at this point, is to
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          First off, I deleted message # 159, as there was nothing new in it. A
          mistake on your part, I guess.


          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19"
          <pandemonium19@...> wrote:
          >
          > There are a fue things I would like to comment about before we
          > continue this debate:
          >
          > First of all, as Nietzsche himself says, through the lips of his
          > prophet Zarathustra, one should count on the teacher only to some
          > certain extent, and must live him at a certain point. I'm sorry for
          > not remembering the exact quote. So I recommand not quoting Nietzsche
          > like this all the time, but instead just learn from him and let go,
          > and think a bit for ourselves. Nietzsche is my firm base, but we are
          > two different people with different opinions.
          >

          And different customs. My custom, at this point, is to stick closely
          to the text.



          > Second, about The Will to Power, it should be remembered that this is
          > the last of Nietzsche's books and was published only after his death,
          > and after editing by his anti-semitic sister. Most agree that this
          > book is not original Nietzsche opinions and philosophy and do take to
          > account that it was changed before publishing by anti-semitic
          > factors, oppossed to Nietzsche, who was not racial at all. So I would
          > take all that is written in The Will to Power with a grain of salt.
          >

          I would go even further than that, and take *everything* that is
          written with a grain of salt -- including what is written about The
          Will to Power.

          "Most agree" is no valid argument to a Nietzschean: Nietzsche was
          concerned with the fewest, not with the most.

          Almost everything in The Will to Power is in Nietzsche's -- almost
          indecipherable -- handwriting. What is not is "evidently dictated", as
          Walter Kaufmann, whose English translation has done much to
          "de-Nazify" Nietzsche, puts it. So, unless someone forged Nietzsche's
          handwriting so well that all leading Nietzsche scholars have been
          fooled so far, the early editors can only have *suppressed* things --
          not added things. So everything in The Will to Power is pure
          Nietzsche, though admittedly not "final". Then again, Nietzsche's
          early works cannot be said to be "final" either (and if he had
          remained sane ten years longer, neither might his later works).

          As for the racial question, I cannot ask you to prove a negative, of
          course. So I will prove the corresponding positive.

          "It is quite in order that we possess no religion of oppressed Aryan
          races [as opposed to Semitic races], for that is a contradiction: a
          master race is either on top or it is destroyed."
          [The Will to Power, section 145.]

          As you will see, what he implies here is that the Aryan race is,
          whereas the Semitic race isn't, a master race. I will repeat that this
          was written in Nietzsche's hand, and that nothing had been torn out
          (or else Kaufmann would have mentioned it). If you still dismiss The
          Will to Power as an authority, however, consider the following:

          "These regulations [the laws of Manu] are instructive enough: here we
          encounter for once Aryan humanity, quite pure, quite primordial -- we
          learn that the concept of "pure blood" is the opposite of a harmless
          concept. On the other hand, it becomes clear in which people the
          hatred, the chandala hatred, against this "humaneness" has eternalized
          itself, where it has become religion, where it has become genius. Seen
          in this perspective, the Gospels represent a document of prime
          importance; even more, the Book of Enoch. Christianity, sprung from
          Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil,
          represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race,
          privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity
          -- the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala
          values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt
          of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored,
          against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love."
          [Twilight of the Idols, The "Improvers" of Mankind, section 4, entire.]

          It will be evident where Nietzsche's sympathies and antipathies lay
          here. If you're not convinced, however, I'll refer you to The
          Antichrist(ian):

          "[O]ne had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The
          presence of so much filth makes it very advisable. One would as little
          choose "early Christians" for companions as Polish Jews: not that one
          need seek out an objection to them... Neither has a pleasant smell."
          [AC 46.]

          Nietzsche was an Antichristian (and Antisemite) in that he advocated
          an ethics of breeding, of race, privilege:

          "The problem I thus pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the
          sequence of living beings (—- man is an *end* -—): but what type of
          man shall be *bred*, shall be *willed*, for being higher in value,
          worthier of life, more certain of a future."
          [AC 3.]

          This is not to say that his ethics would be the same as the morality
          found in Manu:

          "A lot is said today about the *Semitic* spirit of the New Testament:
          but what is called Semitic is merely priestly--and in the racially
          purest Aryan law-book, in Manu, this kind of "Semitism," i.e., the
          *spirit of the priest*, is worse than anywhere else."
          [WP 143.]

          "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests,
          teachers of a beyond*".
          [WP 116.]

          "Every type of anti-nature is depraved. The most depraved type of man
          is the priest: He *teaches* anti-nature. Against the priest one
          doesn't use arguments, one uses the penitentiary.
          [...] The priest is *our* chandala -- he should be ostracized,
          starved, and driven into every kind of desert."
          [AC, Decree Against Christianity.]



          >
          > And for my answer itself:
          > I am not an Anarchist and of course support the State and what you
          > said about the Individuals: they should certainly be part of the
          > society, but live on top of it. They are kind of...I don't want to
          > say "shepherds", because their duty is not necessarily to lead the
          > herd, but they are part of society without being part of the herd.
          > They differ, they live in society, but not under its laws and morals,
          > or habits. And most importantly: and Individual is deffinitly NOT an
          > Uebermensch, but only a goal on the way to it.
          > An Individual is not one who acts only for himself while hurting
          > others, but rather a person that puts his own goals and wills at
          > first place and manages to accomplish them without hurting others on
          > the way. As you said, that is the Will to Power: not only the will to
          > live or survive, but the will to become sonething greater than just a
          > living being, the will to become enable to achieve one's goals and
          > defeat the will to achieve the goals of others.
          > An Individual does not act outside society, but above it. It acts out
          > of the herd and out of the herd-mind, but also nakes a part of
          > society.
          >

          I don't think it should act out of the herd and the herd-mind at all.



          >
          > Hope that's clearer now, and I will look for your posts about The
          > Greek State.
          >

          I think I will revisit them shortly. Stay tuned.
        • moodylawless
          Internal influences are much more important than so-called external ones, simply because the latter are all interpreted via the individual. No external
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            Internal influences are much more important than so-called 'external' ones, simply because the latter are all 'interpreted' via the individual.

            No external influences are completely unmediated, and all are 'refashioned'.

            Indeed, many influences taken to be 'external' are actually the inventions of the internal interpreting facility which is always perspectival.

            A sign of strength is the ability to 'make' the world to your own plan - one is not buffeted by the news of events, but one 'makes the news' - one is an event.

            The child does this instinctively through play.

            So childhood is not the seat of neuroses, but is rather the model for the strong individual in his adulthood.

            To recover that 'childish' Innocence of Becoming and delight in play - the dance - the unhistorical with the added Horizon - i.e., the superhistorical; that is the stuff of Supermanhood.

            Yes, this is all on the level of the individual - but only of the higher individual.

            This is still a rare condition.

            This is the individual  who is not influenced by external events - he is an external event.

            He purifies himself.

            He carves himself.

            He makes history.

            He is a world.

            Whereas, the majority are influenced by external events and are driven from pillar to post - these are the Herd, the many-too-many, the plebs, the proles, the slaves, the undermen and mixlings.

            However, no human being is truly independent.

            All depend on something outside themselves no matter how much they transform it.

            Even the rare individual who deserves that name is the product of a lineage [indeed his rareness derives solely from this lineage - an internal factor], is the member of a certain clan.

            He like all beings is dependent upon Nature and ultimately has to acknowledge that Nature is far more powerful than he.

            So when individualism becomes a Stirneresque egoism it is deluded.

            Even the Superman is part of the Chain - indeed, he is a Superman because he is part of such a Chain - a special Chain which endeavours to connect its End to its Beginning.


            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pandemonium19" <pandemonium19@...> wrote:
            >
            > We all know today, thanks to the development of psychology, that all
            > of us are influenced by external sources all the time, twenty four
            > hours a day, seven days a week. But it's even worse when those
            > influences comes in our childhood, from our parents and teachers. We
            > are all educated in a certain manner so we could fit into society and
            > become obedient sheeps, a part of the herd. That is a most dangerous
            > situation and the downfall of humanity. Indeed, humanity has already
            > fallen, but due to its own mistakes in education, some of the members
            > of the herd grow in certain circumstances that makes them different.
            > They wish for a change and set to themselves a higher goal than that
            > of the rest of humanity, and thus become "chosen people". Those are
            > the Individuals.

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.