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

Re: Towards the future: The European people.

Expand Messages
  • sauwelios
    ... I think a homogeneous European race is indeed possible, and probably desirable. But this race will not be a chosen people; the chosen ones are those who
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 4 1:30 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
      >
      > 'Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a
      > people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people
      > arise:—and out of it the Superman.' - Zarathustra, The Bestowing Virtue
      >
      > For the firt time in history Europe is united in the absense of
      > occupation. Europe is becoming more and more culturally homogenious.
      > Perhaps these are some of the conditions that need to be satisfied in
      > order for a single European people to emerge from beneath the states of
      > Europe. Perhaps such a people will be a chosen people, from which the
      > Ubermensch shall arise. Perhaps it will even occur in our lifetime.
      >

      I think a homogeneous European race is indeed possible, and probably
      desirable. But this race will not be a chosen people; the chosen ones
      are those who chose themselves by *refusing* to join the masses: hence
      "seceding ones". Compare what I wrote in message # 72:

      "It seems to me that Humanism - indeed, all "democratic-socialistic"
      movements, to speak with Neumann - aims, wittingly or not, at a
      stagnation of man - a fixation of the type, as with, for instance, the
      Bonobo. This is what Nietzsche called the Last Man. As long as there
      are people - we have always been in the minority! - who are
      aristocratically inclined, the type will not be fixed and there can
      still be Overmen."

      The homogeneous European race will be a race of Last Men; the chosen
      people will be a folk of relative Overmen. And these shall be
      "separated as much as possible". Separated by *whom*? It appears there
      must be a third type -- a third *caste*? -- to act as a living wall
      between the two -- this caste must therefore be rank-ordinately second.

      Ah, but the chosen people will only consist of *relative* Overmen.
      "The Overman" as a *type* will only arise *out* of the former -- rise
      above them. Thus the masses may be the third caste -- a caste of
      pacifists --, the chosen ones may be the second -- a caste of fighting
      spirits --, and the Overmen proper may be the first caste -- one of
      godlike human beings. The first thing for the chosen ones -- once they
      have chosen themselves -- to do, therefore, is to form an Order -- to
      form what Nietzsche called "international racial unions
      [Geschlechts-Verbänden]" (WP 960). Only united can they really declare
      the war on the masses Nietzsche advocates in section 860.
    • Impious
      ... a ... people ... Virtue ... homogenious. ... satisfied in ... states of ... the ... lifetime. ... ones ... hence ... the ... there ... second. ... rise ...
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 5 12:08 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@> wrote:
        > >
        > > 'Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be
        a
        > > people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen
        people
        > > arise:—and out of it the Superman.' - Zarathustra, The Bestowing
        Virtue
        > >
        > > For the firt time in history Europe is united in the absense of
        > > occupation. Europe is becoming more and more culturally
        homogenious.
        > > Perhaps these are some of the conditions that need to be
        satisfied in
        > > order for a single European people to emerge from beneath the
        states of
        > > Europe. Perhaps such a people will be a chosen people, from which
        the
        > > Ubermensch shall arise. Perhaps it will even occur in our
        lifetime.
        > >
        >
        > I think a homogeneous European race is indeed possible, and probably
        > desirable. But this race will not be a chosen people; the chosen
        ones
        > are those who chose themselves by *refusing* to join the masses:
        hence
        > "seceding ones". Compare what I wrote in message # 72:
        >
        > "It seems to me that Humanism - indeed, all "democratic-socialistic"
        > movements, to speak with Neumann - aims, wittingly or not, at a
        > stagnation of man - a fixation of the type, as with, for instance,
        the
        > Bonobo. This is what Nietzsche called the Last Man. As long as there
        > are people - we have always been in the minority! - who are
        > aristocratically inclined, the type will not be fixed and there can
        > still be Overmen."
        >
        > The homogeneous European race will be a race of Last Men; the chosen
        > people will be a folk of relative Overmen. And these shall be
        > "separated as much as possible". Separated by *whom*? It appears
        there
        > must be a third type -- a third *caste*? -- to act as a living wall
        > between the two -- this caste must therefore be rank-ordinately
        second.
        >
        > Ah, but the chosen people will only consist of *relative* Overmen.
        > "The Overman" as a *type* will only arise *out* of the former --
        rise
        > above them. Thus the masses may be the third caste -- a caste of
        > pacifists --, the chosen ones may be the second -- a caste of
        fighting
        > spirits --, and the Overmen proper may be the first caste -- one of
        > godlike human beings. The first thing for the chosen ones -- once
        they
        > have chosen themselves -- to do, therefore, is to form an Order --
        to
        > form what Nietzsche called "international racial unions
        > [Geschlechts-Verbänden]" (WP 960). Only united can they really
        declare
        > the war on the masses Nietzsche advocates in section 860.
        >

        My apologies for some poor philology.

        Any peoples which emerge from beneath the state(s) of Europe
        necessarily consist of those who have turned their back on the New
        Idol ('ye seceding ones'). Zarathustra seems to think that only a
        single, chosen people would be thus formed. The remainder will
        continue to worship the New Idol and will the Last Man. Now, in order
        to give birth to the ubermensch the chosen people must have a
        Dionysian truth. What do I mean by this?

        'What is our light, what is our language, in short, or truth,
        today?' - Deleuze, *Foucault*

        Those of the chosen people who are not yet the ubermensch are
        the 'third type' you referred to. They are what stands between the
        ubermensch and those who worship the New Idol. The Last Man himself
        will never be more than a rarity.
      • sauwelios
        ... The Last Man a rarity? I think he is already a *reality* -- and not too uncommon, either! For instance, when Zarathustra says Everyone wanteth the same;
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 5 5:52 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > My apologies for some poor philology.
          >
          > Any peoples which emerge from beneath the state(s) of Europe
          > necessarily consist of those who have turned their back on the New
          > Idol ('ye seceding ones'). Zarathustra seems to think that only a
          > single, chosen people would be thus formed. The remainder will
          > continue to worship the New Idol and will the Last Man. Now, in order
          > to give birth to the ubermensch the chosen people must have a
          > Dionysian truth. What do I mean by this?
          >
          > 'What is our light, what is our language, in short, or truth,
          > today?' - Deleuze, *Foucault*
          >
          > Those of the chosen people who are not yet the ubermensch are
          > the 'third type' you referred to. They are what stands between the
          > ubermensch and those who worship the New Idol. The Last Man himself
          > will never be more than a rarity.
          >

          The Last Man a rarity? I think he is already a *reality* -- and not
          too uncommon, either! For instance, when Zarathustra says "Everyone
          wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments
          goeth voluntarily into the madhouse" (TSZ Prologue, 5), we need only
          to replace "into the madhouse" by "to the psychiatrist" to see how
          clearly this vision has foreseen present Western society.

          By the way, I have two questions for you. 1. Why did you call the Last
          Man "the penultimate man"? Is he not the "ultimate man"? And 2. What
          is an "ammendum"?
        • sauwelios
          ... In his speech Of the New Idol , Zarathustra says: There, where the state ceaseth -- there only commenceth the man who is not superfluous: there
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 5 6:14 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
            >
            > Of course, Zarathustra is implying that everyone who has turned away
            > from the New Idol rests in a Dionysian truth. I personally don't
            > know if this is the case, but it makes sense and it's highly exciting.
            > I must say that I'm really liking the picture of Europe's future that
            > I'm starting to see here. Perhaps it would even be prudent for
            > Australia to embrace the New Idol and get the ball rolling for itself?
            >

            In his speech "Of the New Idol", Zarathustra says:

            "There, where the state ceaseth -- there only commenceth the man who
            is not superfluous: there commenceth the song of the necessary ones,
            the single and irreplaceable melody.
            There, where the state ceaseth -- pray look thither, my brethren! Do
            ye not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman?"

            Thus where the state (the "new idol") ceases, there commences
            Dionysus, yes:

            "From that height of joy where man feels himself to be altogether a
            deified form and a self-justification of nature, down to the joy of
            healthy peasants and healthy half-human animals, this whole, long,
            tremendous light and color scale of happiness, the Greeks [...] called
            by the divine name: *Dionysus*.-- What do any latter-day men, the
            children of a fragmentary, multifarious, sick, strange age, know of
            the *range* of Greek happiness; what *could* they know of it! Whence
            would the slaves of "modern ideas" derive a right to Dionysian festivals!"
            [WP 1051.]

            Of course, where the State ceases, there only *commences* Dionysus --
            from there it is still a long way to that height of joy mentioned at
            the beginning of the last quote!

            By the way, it is good that you keep referring to the state as "the
            New Idol", because the word "state" might be confusing: for Nietzsche
            is not repudiating the state in every sense:

            "[T]he oldest "state" thus appeared as a fearful tyranny, as an
            oppressive and remorseless machine, and went on working until this raw
            material of people and semi-animals was at last not only thoroughly
            kneaded and pliant but also *formed*. I employed the word "state": it
            is obvious what is meant -— some pack of blond beasts of prey, a
            conqueror and master race which, organized for war and with the
            ability to organize, unhesitatingly lays its terrible claws upon a
            populace perhaps tremendously superior in numbers but still formless
            and nomad. That is after all how the "state" began on earth: I think
            that sentimentalism which would have it begin with a "contract" has
            been disposed of."
            [GM II, 17.]

            The idea that the state began with a "contract" is of course a "modern
            idea" par excellence.

            It seems to me that Nietzsche is advocating a state in the Classical
            sense:

            "It is the value of such a crisis [like the thought of the eternal
            recurrence -- see the "Crises" folder in the Links section] that it
            purifies, that it pushes together related elements to perish of each
            other, that it assigns common tasks to men who have opposite ways of
            thinking--and it also brings to light the weaker and less secure among
            them and thus promotes an order of rank according to strength, from
            the point of view of health: those who command are recognized as those
            who command, those who obey as those who obey as those who obey. Of
            course, outside every existing social order."
            [WP 55.]

            Compare this to Zarathustra's speech "Of Old and New Tables":

            "O my brethren, not long will it be until new peoples shall arise and
            new fountains shall rush down into new depths.
            For the earthquake -- it choketh up many wells, it causeth much
            languishing: but it bringeth also to light inner powers and secrets.
            The earthquake discloseth new fountains. In the earthquake of old
            peoples new fountains burst forth.
            And whoever calleth out: "Lo, here is a well for many thirsty ones,
            one heart for many longing ones, one will for many instruments": -—
            around him collecteth a people, that is to say, many attempting ones.
            Who can command, who must obey -- that is there attempted! Ah, with
            what long seeking and solving and failing and learning and re-attempting!
            Human society: it is an attempt -- so I teach -- a long seeking: it
            seeketh however the ruler! --
            An attempt, my brethren! And no "contract"! Destroy, I pray you,
            destroy that word of the soft-hearted and half-and-half!"
            [section 25.]
          • sauwelios
            ... Well, ammendum is not even a word. Anyway, to keep silent about is not the same as to miss . But let me try to pinpoint your point to see if I have
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 5 12:24 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > My apologies for some poor philology.
              > > >
              > > > Any peoples which emerge from beneath the state(s) of Europe
              > > > necessarily consist of those who have turned their back on the
              > New
              > > > Idol ('ye seceding ones'). Zarathustra seems to think that only a
              > > > single, chosen people would be thus formed. The remainder will
              > > > continue to worship the New Idol and will the Last Man. Now, in
              > order
              > > > to give birth to the ubermensch the chosen people must have a
              > > > Dionysian truth. What do I mean by this?
              > > >
              > > > 'What is our light, what is our language, in short, or truth,
              > > > today?' - Deleuze, *Foucault*
              > > >
              > > > Those of the chosen people who are not yet the ubermensch are
              > > > the 'third type' you referred to. They are what stands between
              > the
              > > > ubermensch and those who worship the New Idol. The Last Man
              > himself
              > > > will never be more than a rarity.
              > > >
              > >
              > > The Last Man a rarity? I think he is already a *reality* -- and not
              > > too uncommon, either! For instance, when Zarathustra says "Everyone
              > > wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments
              > > goeth voluntarily into the madhouse" (TSZ Prologue, 5), we need only
              > > to replace "into the madhouse" by "to the psychiatrist" to see how
              > > clearly this vision has foreseen present Western society.
              > >
              > > By the way, I have two questions for you. 1. Why did you call the
              > Last
              > > Man "the penultimate man"? Is he not the "ultimate man"? And 2. What
              > > is an "ammendum"?
              > >
              >
              >
              > You're right, of course. I was wrong to call the Last Man a man of
              > knowledge (and subsequently rare). Erase the last sentence and change
              > the final 'New Idol' to 'Last Man'. But if that's all you have to say
              > about my post, I fear you've missed the point.
              >
              > As for your questions, I used the wrong word by accident in both
              > cases.
              >

              Well, "ammendum" is not even a word. Anyway, "to keep silent about" is
              not the same as "to miss". But let me try to pinpoint your point to
              see if I have not missed it. Your point seems to be that *several*
              chosen peoples might be formed out of the seceding ones. Now let us
              practice some *good* philology:

              "A thousand paths are there which have never yet been trodden; a
              thousand salubrities and hidden islands of life. Unexhausted and
              undiscovered is still man and man's world.
              Awake and hearken, ye lonesome ones! From the future come winds with
              stealthy pinions, and to fine ears good tidings are proclaimed.
              Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a
              people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people
              arise:- and out of it the Superman."
              [TSZ, Of the Bestowing Virtue, 2.]

              These "thousand paths" remind me of the thousand goals:

              "Loving ones, was it always, and creating ones, that created good and
              bad. Fire of love gloweth in the names of all the virtues, and fire of
              wrath.
              Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: no greater power did
              Zarathustra find on earth than the creations of the loving ones --
              "good" and "bad" are they called.
              Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye
              brethren, who will master it for me? Who will put a fetter upon the
              thousand necks of this animal?
              A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have
              there been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking;
              there is lacking the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.
              But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still
              lacking, is there not also still lacking -- humanity itself?"
              [ibid., Of the Thousand and One Goals.]

              This one goal is of course the Superman. So the "thousand paths" will
              be converged by the loving one who will fetter the "thousand necks"
              and unite the "thousand peoples". This loving one is
              Nietzsche-Zarathustra, of course. And which are the good and bad he
              has created?

              "What is good? -— Everything that heightens the feeling of power, the
              will to power, power itself, in man.
              What is bad? -— Everything that is born of weakness."
              [AC 2.]

              And what is the name of the virtue he has valued as the highest?

              "*Not* contentedness but more power; *not* peace but war; *not* virtue
              but fitness [Tüchtigkeit] (Renaissance-style virtue, virtù,
              moraline-free virtue)."
              [ibid.]

              http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=wlqAU.&search=T%FCchtigkeit
            • sauwelios
              ... I wanted to tell you this in private, but as you don t seem to read your email often, I will tell you here as well. Most members receive every posted
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 6 7:27 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
                >
                > Re: Towards the future: The European people.
                >
                >
                > > This one goal is of course the Superman. So the "thousand paths" will
                > > be converged by the loving one who will fetter the "thousand necks"
                > > and unite the "thousand peoples". This loving one is
                > > Nietzsche-Zarathustra, of course. And which are the good and bad he
                > > has created?
                > >
                >
                > Wars must be fought to unify multifarious peoples. The loving one is
                > the force behind such wars. He need not be a Zarathustra. But he who
                > masters the power of praising and blaming so as to give humanity the
                > goal of the ubermensch is the greatest of them.
                >

                I wanted to tell you this in private, but as you don't seem to read
                your email often, I will tell you here as well. Most members receive
                every posted message in an individual email. As I don't want their
                inboxes (including my own) to be unnecessarily flooded, I must ask you
                to think before you post. Of course you may want to correct yourself
                once in awhile, but this is insane. Be warned.

                Now as to your post. I did not say such a loving one need be a
                Zarathustra, but that the loving one who gave the "thousands peoples"
                their one goal was Nietzsche-Zarathustra.

                Whence the importance of "the power of praising and blaming"? Does not
                Zarathustra say: "When ye are exalted above praise and blame, and your
                will would command all things, as a loving one's will: there is the
                origin of your virtue"?

                Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil, above
                praise and blame.
              • sauwelios
                ... Not so much that I disagree as that it doesn t really make sense to me. Is it necessary to master the power of praising and blaming in order to give
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 6 4:34 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Nielsen"
                  <cmn1980@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Is that to say you *disagree* with the statement 'he who masters the
                  > power of praising and blaming so as to give humanity the goal of the
                  > ubermensch is the greatest of them.'?
                  >

                  Not so much that I disagree as that it doesn't really make sense to
                  me. Is it necessary to "master the power of praising and blaming" in
                  order to give humanity the goal of the Übermensch?

                  Nietzsche does say somewhere that the greatest of them (read:
                  Nietzsche) has to goad some and flatter others in order to get them to
                  do his will. Is that what you mean?
                • Impious
                  ... the ... the ... Isn t that exactly what Zarathustra says? Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye brethren, who will master
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 7 1:33 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Nielsen"
                    > <cmn1980@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Is that to say you *disagree* with the statement 'he who masters
                    the
                    > > power of praising and blaming so as to give humanity the goal of
                    the
                    > > ubermensch is the greatest of them.'?
                    > >
                    >
                    > Not so much that I disagree as that it doesn't really make sense to
                    > me. Is it necessary to "master the power of praising and blaming" in
                    > order to give humanity the goal of the Übermensch?
                    >

                    Isn't that exactly what Zarathustra says?

                    'Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye
                    brethren, who will master it for me? Who will put a fetter upon the
                    thousand necks of this animal?'
                  • sauwelios
                    ... Er, yes, I must have missed that after I cited it... I think, though, that I was also misled by the translation. Let us practice some more philology.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 7 9:13 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Isn't that exactly what Zarathustra says?
                      >
                      > 'Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye
                      > brethren, who will master it for me? Who will put a fetter upon the
                      > thousand necks of this animal?'
                      >

                      Er, yes, I must have missed that after I cited it...

                      I think, though, that I was also misled by the translation. Let us
                      practice some more philology.

                      "Verily, a prodigy [Ungetüm] is this power of praising and blaming.
                      Tell me, ye brethren, who will master [bezwingt] it for me? Who will
                      put a fetter upon the thousand necks of this animal?"

                      *Ungetüm* means "monster". Now in Latin, *prodigium* also meant
                      "monster" (as well as "omen"), but in (modern) English it doesn't, as
                      far as I know. Maybe in the King James version of the Bible it does
                      (Thomas Common's translation uses mock-King James Biblical language to
                      reflect the German original's mock-Luther Biblical language).

                      According to my dictionary, *bezwingen* means "to conquer, subdue,
                      check, curb, control, restrain; suppress; quell; contain; keep back;
                      govern, master"; according to LEO, it means "to defeat, down,
                      overcome, overmaster, quell, subjugate, vanquish". So this is he kind
                      of mastery that is meant.

                      The power of praising and blaming is a monster that must be subdued.
                      Now for another bit of philology.

                      "Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: no greater power did
                      Zarathustra find on earth than the creations of the loving ones --
                      "good" and "bad" ["gut" und "böse"] are they called."

                      I was aware of this from the beginning, but suppressed it in order to
                      make the connection to The Antichrist(ian), section 2. In that
                      section, there is also mention of good and bad; however, the words
                      used there are *gut* and *schlecht* respectively.

                      "Whoever begins at this point, like my readers, to reflect and pursue
                      his train of thought will not soon come to the end of it--reason
                      enough for me to come to an end, assuming it has long since been
                      abundantly clear what my *aim* is [was ich *will*], what the aim of
                      that dangerous slogan is that is inscribed at the head of my last
                      book: "*Beyond Good and Evil*" ["*Jenseits von Gut und Böse*"]... At
                      least this does *not* mean "Beyond Good and Bad." ["Jenseits von Gut
                      und Schlecht."]----"
                      [Toward the Genealogy of Morality, Treatise I, section 17.]

                      This is just the beginning of my quote-fest. Beware all reading idlers!

                      "When ye are exalted above praise and blame, and your will would
                      command all things, as a loving one's will: there is the origin of
                      your virtue.
                      [...]
                      Verily, a new good and evil is it! Verily, a new deep murmuring, and
                      the voice of a new fountain!
                      Power is it, this new virtue; a ruling thought is it, and around it a
                      subtle soul: a golden sun, with the serpent of knowledge around it."
                      [TSZ, Of the Bestowing Virtue, 1.]

                      The loving ones who create good and evil are themselves beyond good
                      and evil!

                      "Assuming one thinks of a philosopher as a great educator, powerful
                      enough to draw up to his lonely height a long chain of generations,
                      then one must also grant him the uncanny privileges of the great
                      educator. An educator never says what he himself thinks, but only what
                      he thinks of a thing in relation to the requirements of those he
                      educates [compare the hunchback's last question in Zarathustra's
                      speech Of Redemption]. He must not be detected in this dissimulation;
                      it is part of his mastery that one believes in his honesty. He must be
                      capable of employing every means of discipline: some he can drive
                      toward the heights only with the whips of scorn; others, who are
                      sluggish, irresolute, cowardly, vain, perhaps only with exaggerated
                      praise. Such an educator is beyond good and evil; but no one must know
                      it."
                      [The Will to Power, section 980, entire.]

                      This applies to *philosophers*, that is, to moralists. Nietzsche
                      himself was a self-proclaimed misosopher and immoralist.

                      As he says in WP 304, a moralist must himself be immoral. And I think
                      an immoralist must himself be moral in a way, or rather, *ethical*, as
                      in the title of Peter Berkowitz' book, 'Nietzsche: The Ethics of an
                      Immoralist'. These "ethics" are values of good and bad, as opposed to
                      "morals" which are values of good and evil.

                      Nietzsche is, as immoralist, himself "ethical": he is not beyond good
                      and *bad*. But he does not need to conceal that he is beyond good and
                      evil -- for the following reason.

                      "Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses -- and not herds or
                      believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh -- those who
                      grave new values on new tables."
                      [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]

                      *Fellow*-creators is what he seeks. Fellow loving ones. For this
                      reason those to whom he "preaches" shall also be beyond good and evil.

                      This means, by the way, that Nietzsche-Zarathustra is himself a
                      believer in good and bad, in which he wants his disciples to believe.
                      He is himself a disciple -- of *Dionysus*. But is Dionysus beyond good
                      and bad?
                    • Impious
                      ... A good and bad speaks through *every* perspective, including the greatest perspective, that of Dionysus.
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 8 5:42 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > This means, by the way, that Nietzsche-Zarathustra is himself a
                        > believer in good and bad, in which he wants his disciples to believe.
                        > He is himself a disciple -- of *Dionysus*. But is Dionysus beyond good
                        > and bad?
                        >

                        A good and bad speaks through *every* perspective, including the
                        greatest perspective, that of Dionysus.
                      • sauwelios
                        ... I guess I was thinking of the Primordial One , the early Nietzsche s version of the One God, which he later abandoned. I think you are right about the
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 9 10:20 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Impious" <cmn1980@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > This means, by the way, that Nietzsche-Zarathustra is himself a
                          > > believer in good and bad, in which he wants his disciples to believe.
                          > > He is himself a disciple -- of *Dionysus*. But is Dionysus beyond good
                          > > and bad?
                          > >
                          >
                          > A good and bad speaks through *every* perspective, including the
                          > greatest perspective, that of Dionysus.
                          >

                          I guess I was thinking of the "Primordial One", the early Nietzsche's
                          version of the One God, which he later abandoned. I think you are
                          right about the later Dionysus, though:

                          "Thus he [Dionysus] once said: "Under certain circumstances I love
                          what is human" -- and with this he alluded to Ariadne who was present
                          -- "man is to my mind an agreeable, courageous, inventive animal that
                          has no equal on earth; it finds its way in any labyrinth. I am well
                          disposed towards him: I often reflect how I might yet advance him and
                          make him stronger, more evil, and more profound than he is." --
                          "Stronger, more evil, and more profound?" I asked startled. "Yes," he
                          said once more; "stronger, more evil, and more profound; also more
                          beautiful" -- and at that the tempter god smiled with his halcyon
                          smile as though he had just paid an enchanting compliment."
                          [BGE 295 (1885).]

                          "Stronger", "more evil", "more profound" (*tiefer*), and "more
                          beautiful" -- these are evidently instances of "better" as opposed to
                          "worse". For "good" and "bad" basically mean "strong" and "weak", that
                          is, "strong-willed" and "weak-willed", respectively. And "evil" is
                          what the weak call the strong. Becoming more beautiful is a
                          consequence of enhanced strength (WP 800), and acquiring depth
                          (*Tiefe*) goes hand in hand with becoming evil (GM I, 6).

                          Also, Nietzsche called Zarathustra "a Dionysus" (in Ecce Homo), and we
                          had already seen that Zarathustra was beyond good and evil, but not
                          beyond good and bad. Zarathustra has no educators or gods beyond him;
                          and neither, perhaps, has Dionysus.

                          I want to make two digression. The first concerns the Primordial One,
                          and Nietzsche's abandonment thereof.

                          "Once on a time, Zarathustra also cast his fancy beyond man, like all
                          backworldsmen. The work of a suffering and tortured God, did the world
                          then seem to me.
                          The dream and diction of a God, did the world then seem to me;
                          coloured vapours before the eyes of a divinely dissatisfied one.
                          Good and evil, and joy and woe, and I and thou -- coloured vapours did
                          they seem to me before creative eyes. The creator wished to look away
                          from himself, -- thereupon he created the world.
                          Intoxicating joy is it for the sufferer to look away from his
                          suffering and forget himself. Intoxicating joy and self-forgetting,
                          did the world once seem to me.
                          This world, the eternally imperfect, an eternal contradiction's image
                          and imperfect image -- an intoxicating joy to its imperfect creator:
                          -- thus did the world once seem to me."
                          [TSZ, Of the Backworldsmen.]

                          This is evidently a description of the Primordial One:

                          "Becoming, experienced and explained from the inside, would be the
                          continuous creating by an unsatisfied one, an awfully rich one
                          [Überreichen], an infinitely tense and pressed one, by a God, who
                          overcomes the torment of Being only through constant transforming and
                          changing: -- appearance as his temporary, at-every-moment-attained
                          redemption; the world as the succession of divine visions and
                          redemptions [Erlösungen] in appearance."
                          [Revaluation of All Values, book 4, section 550, my trans.]

                          A similar description is found in Nietzsche's 'Attempt at a
                          Self-Criticism' (1886):

                          "[T]he whole book [The Birth of Tragedy] knows only an artistic
                          meaning and crypto-meaning behind all events -- a "god," [*Gott*] if
                          you please, but certainly only an entirely reckless and amoral
                          artist-god who wants to experience, whether he is building or
                          destroying, in the good and in the bad [Schlimmen], his own joy and
                          glory -- one who, creating worlds, frees [erlöst] himself from the
                          *distress* of fullness and *overfullness* and from the *affliction* of
                          the contradictions compressed in his soul. The world -- at every
                          moment the *attained* salvation [Erlösung] of God, as the eternally
                          changing, eternally new vision of the most deeply afflicted,
                          discordant, and contradictory being who can find salvation only in
                          *appearance*[...]"
                          [Attempt at a Self-Criticism, section 5.]

                          I have even dedicated a Yahoo Group to this idea, though by now I have
                          largely abandoned it; but I still like to "steal round the grave of my
                          God" (TSZ, ibid.) once in a while.

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/madgod/message/4

                          It seems to me that the "imperfection" Zarathustra mentions, regarding
                          this God, is precisely his *per*fection -- the word understood in the
                          literal sense. He is perfect, he is Being: and in order to "free
                          himself from the *distress* of fullness and *overfullness* and from
                          the *affliction* of the contradictions compressed in his soul", he
                          needs the vision of Becoming (i.e., this world).

                          This reminds me, in turn, of Trikasamarasya Kaula:

                          "If God is only Unity, Transcendentality, Darkness and Peace, then the
                          universe in which we live (it does not matter, whether it is real or
                          illusory) exists apart from God. And if God has no connection with it,
                          then He/She/It is not all-embracing, that means, He/She/It is limited
                          and imperfect. If God is only the whole creation, all the countless
                          phenomena of the world, Light, Fullness and eternally moving Energy,
                          He is limited by these properties, fragmented and manifested in that
                          which is perceived as matter and energy. In this case it seems that
                          there is no other reality beyond the world of phenomena, there is
                          nothing transcendental, different from the universe that has definite
                          properties; that means, God cannot be the true Great Emptiness,
                          Darkness, Absolute Peace and unfragmented Unity. So, such a God is
                          also not all-embracing and not perfect, and is not true God. [...] If
                          God is only Omnipotence, Infinity, Purity, Knowledge, Infinite
                          Freedom, if God is only Indescribable Reality, which is transcendental
                          Unity with the magical power to manifest in the form of all boundless
                          creation, -- that means that God cannot experience limitedness,
                          ignorance and weakness. And if there is something he cannot do, that
                          means that in reality God is not omnipotent, not full and not
                          all-embracing; thus, he is not God at all.

                          "See, it is bad to be Nara, enslaved by your limitations, but is it
                          good to be God, enslaved by your great freedom and inability to go
                          beyond? Are these omnipotence and freedom real omnipotence and
                          freedom? Certainly not. What kind of God are you, if there is
                          something you cannot do and do not include! [...] [T]rue Absolute
                          Perfection [...] has no problems or limitations, not even the problem
                          of limitations from the absence of the problem of limitations."
                          http://bhairava-tantra.org/e-tantra-text-trika-selfrealise.html

                          So far my first digression. The second concerns the meaning of Ariadne.

                          In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche says:

                          "Nothing like this [Zarathustra's Night-Song] has ever been written,
                          felt, or *suffered*: thus suffers a god, a Dionysus. The answer to
                          such a dithyramb of solar solitude in the light would be Ariadne...
                          Who besides me knows what Ariadne is!... For all such riddles nobody
                          so far had any solution, I doubt that anybody even saw any riddles
                          here. -- Zarathustra once defines, strictly, his task -- it is mine as
                          well --, and there is no mistaking his *meaning*: he says *Yes* to the
                          point of justifying, of redeeming even all of the past.
                          [...]
                          In another passage he defines as strictly as possible what alone "man"
                          can be for him -- *not* an object of love, or worse, pity --
                          Zarathustra has mastered the *great nausea* over man, too: man is for
                          him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor.
                          *Willing* no more and *esteeming* no more and *creating* no more: oh
                          that this great weariness might always remain far from me!
                          In knowledge, too, I feel only my will's joy in begetting and
                          becoming; and if there is innocence in my knowledge, it is because the
                          *will to beget* is in it.
                          Away from God and gods this will has lured me: what could one create
                          if gods -- were there?
                          But my fervent will to create impels me ever again toward man; thus is
                          the hammer impelled toward the stone.
                          Alas men, in the stone an image is sleeping, the image of images!
                          Alas, that it has to sleep in the hardest, ugliest stone!
                          *Now my hammer rages cruelly against its prison.* Pieces of rock rain
                          from the stone: what is that to me!
                          I want to perfect it; for a shadow came to me, -- the stillest and
                          lightest of all things once came to me!
                          The beauty of the overman came to me as a shadow: what are gods to me
                          now!..."
                          [EH, on TSZ, section 8.]

                          Ariadne is man, in whom Zarathustra, who is a mask of Dionysus,
                          discerns the sleeping image of the Overman. The Overman is man, but
                          stronger, more evil, more profound, and more beautiful. Thus the
                          solution to Dionysus' solar solitude in the light is Ariadne: Dionysus
                          is perfect, but man is not. Dionysus' redemption from his perfection,
                          from his Being, is thus the perfecting, the making-more-perfect, of
                          man (whose becoming-more-perfect is a Becoming, of course).
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.