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

The Masculine and the Feminine: Introduction.

Expand Messages
  • Sauwelios
    Central to Nietzsche s philosophy is the feminine, or rather the difference between the masculine and the feminine ( feminine is a relative term!). Thus he
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Central to Nietzsche's philosophy is the feminine, or rather the
      difference between the masculine and the feminine ("feminine" is a
      relative term!). Thus he opens his first book, The Birth of Tragedy
      (1872), as follows.

      "Much will have been gained for aesthetics once we have succeeded in
      apprehending directly -- rather than merely ascertaining -- that art
      owes its continuous evolution to the *Apollinian-Dionysian* duality,
      even as the propagation of the species depends on the duality of the
      sexes, their constant conflicts and periodic acts of reconciliation."

      This is the first sentence of the first section of his first book. But
      it does not end here. In the first sentence of the Preface to Beyond
      Good and Evil (1886), he compares truth -- a central concept to a
      philosopher, I should say! -- to a woman; and in Thus Spake
      Zarathustra (1883-85), his mystical poetic work, he regards Life,
      Eternity, Happiness, and Wisdom as women.

      All this may serve to confirm to what extent his healthy heterosexual
      attunement toward the feminine permeated his thought. And indeed, he
      himself writes, in the aforementioned Beyond Good and Evil:

      "The degree and kind of a man's sexuality reaches up into the topmost
      summit of his spirit."
      [section 75, entire.]

      Be it then proclaimed that Nietzsche's masculinity, and thereby his
      attunement toward the feminine, and thus the difference between the
      masculine and the feminine, are of the essence of his philosophy. It
      is from this basic difference that the dualities found throughout his
      work derive: the Apollinian and the Dionysian (later the Dionysian and
      the Christian), the Classical and the Modern, the strong and the weak,
      the Masters and the Slaves, etc. It is therefore a very fruitful
      enterprise to study his ideas about man and woman; it may even unlock
      Nietzsche's philosophy for us.
    • Sauwelios
      First I will assert that the Classical and the Modern correspond to the masculine and the feminine for Nietzsche. We may later see why this is so; but right
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        First I will assert that the Classical and the Modern correspond to
        the masculine and the feminine for Nietzsche. We may later see why
        this is so; but right now, I will suppose a sufficient familiarity
        with Nietzsche's writings in my readers so as to be able to appreciate
        this correspondence even if one hadn't realised it yet.

        I will contrast the masculine and the feminine by the hand of two
        passages, both from The Will to Power. The first is about woman; the
        second about the Classical.

        "Would any link at all be missing in the chain of art and science if
        woman, if the *work of woman* were missing? Admitting exceptions --
        they prove the rule -- woman attains perfection in everything that is
        not a work: in letters, in memoirs, even in the most delicate
        handiwork, in short in everything that is not a métier -- precisely
        because in these things she perfects herself, because she here obeys
        the only artistic impulse she has -- she wants to *please*..."
        [section 817 (1887-88).]

        "Classical taste: that is the will to simplification, strengthening,
        to visibility of happiness, to terribleness, the courage of
        psychological *nakedness* (-- simplification is a consequence of the
        will to strengthening; allowing happiness to become visible, as well
        as nakedness, a consequence of the will to terribleness...).
        [section 868 (1887-88).]

        Both translations are versions of the Walter Kaufmann translation,
        corrected by yours truly in accordance with the German original.
        Kaufmann translates "the will to terribleness" as "the will to be
        terrible", which is indeed what is meant ("terrible" in the sense of
        "fearful, terrifying"). This translation makes it easier to see the
        contrast between

        the will to be terrible

        the will to please.

        Now in the second passage, Nietzsche first mentions five different
        things (the will to simplification, to strengthening, to visibility of
        happiness, to terribleness, and the courage of psychological
        nakedness), and then orders these in two groups, or rather: he uses
        two of them to categorise the other three, into consequences of the
        one and consequences of the other. Thus he basically mentions only two
        different things: the will to strengthening and the will to be terrible.

        If we contrast the will to be terrible with the will to please, the
        corresponding contrast is between the will to strengthening and the
        will to weakening. Why should anyone want to become weaker? Because
        one thereby becomes more pleasing. Thus the will to weakening is a
        means of the will to please, and therefore the will to strengthening
        is a means of the will to be terrible. And the will to please is a
        form of the will to power: by being pleasing to him, woman wills power
        over man. Therefore the will to be terrible is the corresponding
        *masculine* form of the will to power.

        One could counter that the will to please is only woman's only
        *artistic* impulse, and not the essence of her being. But as Heidegger
        says -- and this is firmly grounded in Nietzsche --, "will to power
        finds its supreme configuration [Gestalt] in art" (Heidegger,
        'Nietzsche', Vol. I, chapter 12, trans. Farrell Krell). And as "this
        world is the will to power -- and nothing besides! And you yourselves
        are also this will to power -- and nothing besides!" (Nietzsche, The
        Will to Power, section 1067), the will to please is the supreme
        configuration of woman's very being.
      • Sauwelios
        *Custom and beauty.* -- In favour of custom let it not be kept quiet that in whomever subjects himself to it completely and wholeheartedly and from the very
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          "*Custom and beauty.* -- In favour of custom let it not be kept quiet
          that in whomever subjects himself to it completely and wholeheartedly
          and from the very beginning, the organs of attack and defense -- the
          corporeal as well as the spiritual ones -- atrophy: that is to say, he
          becomes increasingly more beautiful! For it is the exercise of those
          organs and of the attitude that corresponds to them that keeps ugly
          and makes uglier. For this reason the old baboon is uglier than the
          young, and the female young baboon is most akin to man: thus the most
          beautiful. -- From this one should draw a conclusion regarding the
          origin of the beauty of women!"
          [Nietzsche, The Dawn, section 25, entire, my translation.]

          This explains how one's weakening can increase one's power to please.
          For the atrophy of one's corporeal and spiritual organs of attack and
          defense -- which follows from the lack of the exercise of those organs
          and the corresponding attitude -- apparently makes people as well as
          baboons aesthetically more pleasing to people. But one will see that
          this is a wholly *negative* beauty.

          Nietzsche says the exercise of those organs and of the attitude that
          corresponds to them keeps ugly and makes uglier. But "ugly" is
          *hässlich* in German, literally "hately" -- hateful in the sense of
          "arousing hatred". This hatred is aroused not because the "hately" one
          is lacking something, but to the contrary, because he has something in
          *excess*. He is too formidable for us, too terrible to be a pleasant
          sight to us.

          A great word, by the way, this "formidable". I already saw LEO
          translated *Furchtbarkeit* (translated above as "terribleness") as
          both "fearfulness" and "formidableness", but I thought
          "formidableness" was a rather figurative translation. In my native
          language, "formidable" is never used in the sense of "fearful", only
          in the sense of "impressive, awesome" (but compare "awful"!). I just
          learned from the OED, however, that it derives from the Latin
          *formidare*, "to fear, to dread".

          Anyway, let us continue. The "ugly one", as opposed to the beautiful
          one whose beauty is wholly negative, is too formidable for us, too
          terrible to be a pleasant sight to us.

          "It is a question of *strength* [*Kraft*] (of an individual or of a
          people), *whether* and *where* the judgment "beautiful" is applied.
          The feeling of plenitude, of *dammed-up strength* (which permits one
          to meet with courage and good-humor much that makes the weakling
          *shudder*)--the feeling of *power* applies the judgment "beautiful"
          even to things and conditions that the instinct of impotence could
          only find *hateful* and "ugly" [*hassenswert*, "hässlich"]. The nose
          for what we could still barely deal with if it confronted us in the
          flesh--as danger, problem, temptation--this determines even our
          aesthetic Yes. ("That is beautiful" is an *affirmation*.)"
          [The Will to Power, section 852.]

          But this passage presents us with a problem. For is the beautiful only
          that which we're up to? That is, which we're sufficiently strong to
          *subdue*? Must the beautiful always be something we see, or can
          imagine, beneath us? From a man's perspective it may seem so; but what
          about a woman's perspective? If a man finds a woman beautiful in the
          negative sense, as someone he sees beneath himself in strength, she
          cannot see him in the same way, of course (supposing they see things
          as they are, i.e., they are not mistaken about each other's strength).
          And yet they may be attracted to each other -- that is, she may also
          be attracted to *him*. So there is also a positive beauty, though it's
          not aesthetically "pleasing". It is rather that beauty which, as Moody
          Lawless once said, "is terror": as "every thing of beauty is a sight
          to behold". The latter quotation may not be exact.
        • Sauwelios
          ... wrote: {snipped} ... Oops! the quotation is completely mistaken. For I accidentally typed beauty instead of power . The quotation as I remember it reads
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
            wrote: {snipped}
            >
            > So there is also a positive beauty, though it's
            > not aesthetically "pleasing". It is rather that beauty which, as Moody
            > Lawless once said, "is terror": as "every thing of beauty is a sight
            > to behold". The latter quotation may not be exact.
            >

            Oops! the quotation is completely mistaken. For I accidentally typed
            "beauty" instead of "power". The quotation as I remember it reads
            "Every thing of power is a sight to behold."
          • Sauwelios
            In Miguel Serrano s book NOS, a conversation between him and Jung is recorded. In the course of that, Jung says: Eros was united with his Beloved inside the
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 10, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              In Miguel Serrano's book NOS, a conversation between him and Jung is
              recorded. In the course of that, Jung says:

              "Eros was united with his Beloved inside the Great Orphic, Cosmic Egg:
              *Phanes, Erika Paios*. *Eros* unites, but *Phobos*, fear, hatred
              (nothing is closer to love than hatred) disunites, leads to
              separation, breaks the Cosmic Egg. So as to acquire consciousness,
              individuality, so as to be able one day to give a face to the Cosmic Egg."
              [from the chapter 'Another Turn of the Wheel'.]

              The Greek *phobos* (as in "hydrophobic", water-repellent) may mean
              both "fear" and "hatred", according to Jung; and it stands opposed to
              *eros*. The thing is that *eros* seeks to diminish the gulf between
              two beings, whereas *phobos* seeks to widen it. That gulf arouses the
              *pathos of distance*.

              "*Erôs* arises in response to the gulf that separates the exemplary
              human being from all others, and it naturally aspires to bridge this
              gulf. While the self-overflowing emanations of the will establish and
              preserve the *pathos* of distance, *erôs* strives to eliminate or
              minimize the distance between lover and beloved."
              [Daniel W. Conway, 'Love's labor's lost' (essay).]

              Thus an "ugly" being, as measured by the negative concept of beauty --
              feminine beauty --, may arouse the *eros* of beings that are
              "beautiful" in this sense. It is precisely its *phobos*, its
              fearsomeness, -- that which sets it apart, and *wills* to do so --
              that arouses it: by creating a gulf, a barrier, a *desert* around it:

              "The greatness of an artist cannot be measured by the "beautiful
              feelings" he arouses: leave that idea to females. But according to the
              degree to which he approaches the grand style, to which he is capable
              of the grand style. This style has this in common with great passion,
              that it disdains to please[!]; that it forgets to persuade; that it
              commands; that it *wills*-- To become master of the chaos one is; to
              compel one's chaos to become form; to become logical, simple,
              unambiguous, mathematics, *law*--that is the grand ambition here.-- It
              repels[!]; such men of force are no longer loved--a desert [Einöde,
              "solitude"] spreads around them, a silence, a fear as in the presence
              of some great sacrilege--"
              [The Will to Power, section 842.]

              When Nietzsche says "such men of force are no longer loved" (nichts
              reizt mehr die Liebe zu solchen Gewaltmenschen, "nothing arouses the
              love toward such force-men anymore"), he means they are no longer
              *amiable* to anyone anymore; they do arouse "love" in the sense of
              *erôs*...

              "Other forms of love, such as *agape*, the universal, spiritual love
              praised in the Gospel of John, may certainly play an important role
              within specific cultural settings, but they cannot serve to found or
              constitute culture. The founding of culture requires as its catalyst
              nothing less than *erôs*, the most powerful, discriminating, egoistic
              and dangerous form of love known to humankind".
              [Conway, ibid.]

              And to return to the relationship between great passion and the grand
              style: Nietzsche elsewhere writes:

              "A period when the old masquerade and moral decking-up of the affects
              arouses antipathy: naked nature[!]; where the decisiveness of quanta
              of power is simply admitted (as determining rank); where the grand
              style appears again as the consequence of grand passion."
              [The Will to Power, section 1024.]

              Here we see Nietzsche's view is indeed (compare the "problem"
              mentioned in the preceding message) wholly quantitative. And indeed,
              Nietzsche elsewhere distinguishes between man and woman precisely on
              the basis of the quantity of their passion:

              "*The female intellect.* -- Women's intellect is manifested as perfect
              control [not unsettled by passion], presence of mind [unclouded by
              passion], and utilization of all advantages [because less passion
              means less advantages]. [... W]omen have the intelligence, men the
              heart and passion. This is not contradicted by the fact that men
              actually get so much farther with their intelligence: they have the
              deeper, more powerful drives; these take their intelligence, which is
              in itself something passive, forward."
              [Human, All Too Human, section 411.]

              Spiritually, man and woman are gradations which *behave* as opposites.
              The difference between them follows from a difference in *passion*:
              man has much, woman has little. And the great style follows from great
              passion. Therefore woman is incapable of the grand style.
            • Sauwelios
              ... wrote: {snipped} ... Lots of its here, which may make it confusing. The first it should be no problem. The second, third, and fourth refer to an
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 10, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                wrote: {snipped}
                >
                > Thus an "ugly" being, as measured by the negative concept of beauty --
                > feminine beauty --, may arouse the *eros* of beings that are
                > "beautiful" in this sense. It is precisely its *phobos*, its
                > fearsomeness, -- that which sets it apart, and *wills* to do so --
                > that arouses it: by creating a gulf, a barrier, a *desert* around it:
                >

                Lots of "its" here, which may make it confusing. The first "it" should
                be no problem. The second, third, and fourth refer to "an 'ugly'
                being". But the fifth, in "that arouses it", refers to "the *eros* of
                beings that are 'beautiful' in this sense". The sixth refers to "an
                'ugly' being" again.

                By the way, that quote from The Will to Power, section 1024, quoted
                that section in its entirety.
              • Sauwelios
                This thread was actually inspired by thoughts on shame and shyness. I haven t mentioned these things at all in my thread so far, if I m not mistaken. Shame is
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 10, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  This thread was actually inspired by thoughts on shame and shyness. I
                  haven't mentioned these things at all in my thread so far, if I'm not
                  mistaken.

                  Shame is directly related to beauty in the negative sense (feminine
                  beauty):

                  "*Shamefacedness.* -- Women's shamefacedness generally increases with
                  their beauty."
                  [HATH 398.]

                  Much occasion for remarks here. First off, the word here translated as
                  "shamefacedness", *Schamhaftigkeit*, is rendered on The Nietzsche
                  Channel as "modesty". Also, the word here translated as "women" is
                  *Frauen*, which means "gentlewomen" as opposed to women in general,
                  *Weiber*, common women. Of course, it is only "gentlewomen" that are
                  beautiful: beauty is no accident.

                  LEO renders "Schamhaftigkeit" solely as "shamefacedness. And
                  Merriam-Webster defines "shamefaced" as:

                  "1 : showing modesty : BASHFUL
                  2 : showing shame : ASHAMED"

                  The difference between these two things may be illustrated by what the
                  third of my three most-frequented dictionary sites, the OED, says
                  about shame:

                  "Gk. distinguished shame in the bad sense of "disgrace, dishonor"
                  (*aiskhyne*) from shame in the good sense of "modesty, bashfulness"
                  (*aidos*)."

                  For links to all these three sites, see the "Philology" subsection in
                  the Links section.

                  Also, let us immediately notice that "shamefaced" has nothing to do
                  with the word "face", but is a bastardisation of "shamefast" (see the
                  OED).

                  Now let us look closer to the Greek words mentioned above. *Aidos*
                  originally meant "shyness", in the original sense of a "shying away
                  from, avoiding". It essentially has to do with a sense of fear (German
                  *Furcht*) or respect (German *Ehrfucht* -- these two German words
                  should be compared to the dual sense of the English "awe", as seen in
                  "awful" and "awesome", respectively).

                  So *aidos* could be translated as "modesty" (see the M-W entry for
                  "shamefaced" above). And what about *aiskhyne*?

                  *Aiskhyne* derives from a verb meaning originally "to violate", in the
                  first place in the sense of "to disfigure". To me it seems to be
                  related to the word *aiskhros* -- "ugly" in the sense of -- disfigured...

                  The "ugly" man, as opposed to the (wo)man who is beautiful in the
                  negative sense, is "ugly" due to the exercise of his organs of attack
                  and defense -- his spiritual as well as his corporeal ones -- and of
                  the attitude that corresponds to them. It is the exercise of these
                  things that "disfigures" his negative (feminine) beauty.

                  There is thus a difference between shame in the sense of "modesty"
                  (shyness, shame for one's "beauty") and shame in the sense of
                  "disgrace" (shame for one's "ugliness").

                  "My brethren in war! I love you from the very heart. I am, and was
                  ever, your counterpart. And I am also your best enemy. So let me tell
                  you the truth!
                  I know the hatred and envy of your hearts. Ye are not great enough not
                  to know of hatred and envy. Then be great enough not to be ashamed of
                  them!
                  [...]
                  They call you heartless: but your heart is true, and I love the
                  bashfulness of your goodwill. Ye are ashamed of your flow, and others
                  are ashamed of their ebb.
                  Ye are ugly? Well then, my brethren, take the sublime about you, the
                  mantle of the ugly!"
                  [Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of War and Warriors.]

                  Much occasion for remarks again. First off, it is apparently "great",
                  according to Zarathustra, to not be ashamed. Question: does this apply
                  to both forms of shame, or only to *aiskhyne*? We shall look into this
                  question later.

                  Secondly, the phrase "the bashfulness of your goodwill" is *die Scham
                  eurer Herzlichkeit* in German, literally "the shame of your
                  cordiality". Compare the following:

                  "With hard men intimacy is a thing of shame -- and something precious."
                  [BGE 167, entire.]

                  Those who posses *feminine* beauty are ashamed of their "ebb", i.e.,
                  of the fact that their beauty is wholly negative -- that their organs
                  of attack and defense have atrophied. Hence their shyness, i.e., their
                  fear (shyness is a form or consequence of fear, i.e., of the feeling
                  of a lack of power).

                  Note, by the way, the synonyms of "ebb" and "flow": "low tide" and
                  "high tide", respectively. In this context these correspond to a low
                  amount and a high amount of strength, respectively.

                  Lastly, the description of the sublime as "the mantle of the ugly"
                  reminds me of Blake's Proverbs of Hell, one of which reads:

                  "Shame is Pride's cloke."

                  The word translated as "mantle" above, *Mantel*, may also be
                  translated as "cloak".

                  Another of these proverbs reads: "The pride of the peacock is the
                  glory of God." We should here think of Satan, and thereby of
                  Prometheus... More later!
                • Sauwelios
                  The legend of Prometheus is indigenous to the entire community of Aryan races and attests to their prevailing talent for profound and tragic vision. In fact,
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 10, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "The legend of Prometheus is indigenous to the entire community of
                    Aryan races and attests to their prevailing talent for profound and
                    tragic vision. In fact, it is not improbable that this myth has the
                    same characteristic importance for the Aryan mind as the myth of the
                    Fall has for the Semitic, and that the two myths are related as
                    brother and sister. [...] Man's highest good must be bought with a
                    crime and paid for by the flood of grief and suffering which the
                    offended divinities visit upon the human race in its noble ambition.
                    An austere notion, this, which by the *dignity* it confers on crime
                    presents a strange contrast to the Semitic myth of the Fall -- a myth
                    that exhibits curiosity, deception, suggestibility, concupiscence, in
                    short a whole series of principally feminine frailties, as the root of
                    all evil. [...] The Aryan nations assign to crime the male, the
                    Semites to sin the female gender; and it is quite consistent with
                    these notions that the original act of *hubris* [Frevel] should be
                    attributed to a man, original sin to a woman."
                    [The Birth of Tragedy, chapter 9.]

                    Here we see another instance of an opposition or contrast understood
                    by Nietzsche as a man-woman relation: the Aryan and the Semitic,
                    respectively. To me it seems the "brother-sister" relation between
                    their myths is as follows.

                    In the Semitic myth of the Fall, the focus is on Eve, who accepts the
                    serpent's gift of knowledge of good and evil. In the Aryan myth of
                    Prometheus, the focus is on Prometheus, who brings man the gift of
                    *fire*, which belonged to Zeus (even as the knowledge of good and evil
                    belonged to God). So in the myth of the Fall, the focus is on the
                    receiver, whereas in the myth of Prometheus, the focus is on the
                    giver. Of course the male is also the "giver" of the seed, whereas the
                    female is the receiver.

                    The above quote of The Birth of Tragedy is echoed in the following
                    passage:

                    "The idealization of the *man of great sacrilege* [*grossen Frevlers*]
                    (a sense of his *greatness*) is Greek; depreciation, slandering,
                    contempt for the sinner is Judeo-Christian."
                    [WP 845 (1885-86).]

                    Although the Greeks warned abundantly against hubris -- Heraclitus for
                    instance says it is more urgent to quench hubris than to quench a fire
                    --, it was not a question of *contempt*: for the outrage of the
                    hubristic man was that he set himself in a higher order -- the order
                    of the *gods*. Icarus for instance flew too closely to the sun -- the
                    god Helios --, so that the sun's rays melted the wax which stuck the
                    feathers to his arms, destroying his wings and causing him to plunge
                    to his death. But maybe his flight, which was "no middle flight", to
                    speak with Milton, was worth even death?

                    "The titanic artist was strong in his defiant belief that he could
                    create men and, at the least, destroy Olympian gods; this he was able
                    to do by virtue of his superior wisdom, which, to be sure, he must
                    atone for by eternal suffering. The glorious power "to do" [das
                    herrliche "Können", a reference to the root of the word *Kunst*,
                    "art"], which is possessed by great genius, and for which even eternal
                    suffering is not too high a price to pay -- the *artist's* austere
                    pride -- is of the very essence of Aeschylean poetry [the tragedy
                    'Prometheus Bound' is by Aeschylus]".
                    [BT 9.]

                    Though Zeus ordained that Prometheus be forever bound to the Caucasus
                    for his crime, he was eventually unbound by Hercules. Likewise,
                    according to some early Christian traditions, even Satan would be
                    redeemed by Jesus at his Second Coming. Hercules was a son of Zeus and
                    a mortal woman, even as Jesus was supposed to be the son of God and a
                    mortal woman.

                    "What distinguishes the Aryan conception is an exalted notion of
                    *active sin* as the properly Promethean virtue".
                    [ibid.]

                    Eve's vice, on the other hand, was her seducibility; her "sin"
                    consisted in her *being* seduced -- it was therefore a *passive* sin.
                    And of course the female is not traditionally considered the "passive"
                    member in the equation for nothing: I will invoke again the act in
                    which the male gives her his seed...

                    In describing the "aspirant to the grand style", Nietzsche says:

                    "It [the aspirant's ambition] repels; such men of force are no longer
                    loved -- a desert spreads around them, a silence, a fear as in the
                    presence of some great sacrilege [Frevel]..."
                    [WP 842.]

                    In his speech Of War and Warriors, Zarathustra advises the "ugly" --
                    those who do not possess negative (i.e., feminine) beauty -- to wrap
                    themselves in the sublime, "the cloak of the ugly". The sublime (das
                    Erhabene: the exalted, the august, the *haughty*) is also mentioned in
                    The Birth of Tragedy:

                    "The truth once seen, man is aware everywhere of the ghastly absurdity
                    of existence, comprehends the symbolism of Ophelia's fate and the
                    wisdom of the wood sprite Silenus: nausea invades him. Then, in this
                    supreme jeopardy of the will, *art*, that sorceress expert in healing,
                    approaches him; only she can turn his fits of nausea into imaginations
                    with which it is possible to live. These are on the one hand the
                    *sublime*, which subjugates terror by means of art; on the other hand
                    the *comic*, which releases us, through art, from the tedium of
                    absurdity."
                    [BT 7.]

                    In The Birth of Tragedy, these "imaginations with which it is possible
                    to live" take the form of Tragedy and Comedy, respectively. The tragic
                    hero was a sublime figure, or perhaps an ugly figure wrapped in the
                    cloak of the ugly, the sublime. Prometheus for instance -- the hero of
                    Aeschylus' play -- was not a god; he was a *Titan*. Now consider this:

                    "As a moral deity Apollo demands self-control from his people and, in
                    order to observe such self-control, a knowledge of self. And so we
                    find that the aesthetic necessity of beauty is accompanied by the
                    imperatives, "Know thyself," and "Nothing too much!" Conversely,
                    excess and hubris [Selbstüberhebung] come to be regarded as the
                    hostile spirits of the non-Apollinian sphere, hence as properties of
                    the pre-Apollinian era -- the age of Titans -- and the
                    extra-Apollinian world, that is to say the world of the barbarians. It
                    was because of his Titanic love of man that Prometheus had to be
                    devoured by vultures".
                    [BT 4.]

                    The Apollinian Greeks are here contrasted by Nietzsche with the Titans
                    -- the pre-Apollinian Greeks -- and the barbarians -- the non-Greeks.
                    Now let us look at this passage:

                    "The teaching *meden agan* ["nothing in excess"] applies to men of
                    overflowing strength--not to the mediocre. The *enkrateia*
                    ["temperance"] and *askesis* ["ascetic exercise"] is only a stage
                    toward the heights: the "golden nature" is higher.
                    [...]
                    Higher than "thou shalt" is "I will" (the heroes); higher than "I
                    will" stands: "I am" (the gods of the Greeks).
                    The barbarian gods express nothing of the pleasure of restraint--are
                    neither simple nor frivolous nor moderate."
                    [WP 940.]

                    The heroes, like the Titan Prometheus, are men of overflowing
                    strength, like the barbarians. The Titans as well as the barbarians
                    are fearsome. But the sublimeness of the hero -- the ugly man who has
                    wrapped himself in the cloak of the ugly -- does not yet constitute
                    the grand style:

                    "The grand style arises when the beautiful carries off the victory
                    over the monstrous."
                    [The Wanderer And His Shadow, section 96, entire.]

                    This same insight we see in Thus Spake Zarathustra. The speech Of War
                    and Warriors falls squarely within Part I. But squarely within Part
                    II, in the speech Of the Sublime Ones, the sublime returns, and is
                    judged by Zarathustra:

                    "A sublime one saw I today, a solemn one, a penitent of the spirit:
                    Oh, how my soul laughed at his ugliness!
                    With upraised breast, and like those who draw in their breath: thus
                    did he stand, the sublime one, and in silence:
                    O'erhung with ugly truths, the spoil of his hunting, and rich in torn
                    raiment; many thorns also hung on him -- but I saw no rose."

                    Compare this to The Birth of Tragedy:

                    "The Apollinian need for beauty had to develop the Olympian hierarchy
                    of joy by slow degrees from the original titanic hierarchy of terror,
                    as roses are seen to break from a thorny thicket."
                    [BT 3.]

                    Zarathustra continues:

                    "Not yet had he learned laughing and beauty. Gloomy did this hunter
                    return from the forest of knowledge.
                    From the fight with wild beasts returned he home: but even yet a wild
                    beast gazeth out of his seriousness -- an unconquered wild beast!"

                    This suggests the "wild beast" in him is to be conquered. By the way,
                    the phrases "thou shalt" and "I will" in WP 940 (see above) cannot
                    fail to remind the true Nietzschean of the first speech of Part I, Of
                    the Three Metamorphoses. There the "thou shalt" is the "thou shalt" of
                    the camel, imposed upon it by the dragon; and the "I will" is the "I
                    will" of the lion. Now see what Zarathustra says next:

                    "As a tiger doth he [the sublime one] ever stand, on the point of
                    springing; but I do not like those strained souls; ungracious is my
                    taste towards all those self-engrossed ones."

                    We should only think of tigons and ligers to understand how close the
                    lion and the tiger are. And indeed, Wikipedia tells us:

                    "Rare reports have been made of tigresses mating with lions in the wild."
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

                    The grand style only arises when the metamorphosis of the lion into
                    the child has come about:

                    "He hath subdued monsters, he hath solved enigmas. But he should also
                    redeem his monsters and enigmas; into heavenly children should he
                    transform them."
                    [TSZ, ibid.]

                    This reminds me of the lion with the flock of doves, prophesied in the
                    speech Of Old and New Tables (in Part III), and met by Zarathustra in
                    The Sign, the last chapter of the book (in Part IV). Birds are of
                    course a kind of "heavenly children". Now consider this:

                    "Elsewhere we read of heroes, like Siegfried in the Nordic legend, who
                    understands this language of the birds as soon as they have overcome
                    the dragon, and the symbolism in question may be easily understood
                    from this. Victory over the dragon has, as its immediate consequence,
                    the conquest of immortality, which is represented by some object, the
                    approach to which is barred by the dragon, and the conquest of
                    immortality implies, essentially, reintegration at the center of the
                    human state, that is, at the point where communication is established
                    with higher states of being. It is this communication that is
                    represented by the understanding of the language of the birds."
                    [René Guénon, 'The Language of the Birds', as quoted in Claudia
                    Crawford's essay, 'Nietzsche's Dionysian arts'.]

                    The conquest of immortality: the hero's becoming a god. The dragon is
                    a "subdued monster" which has yet got to be "redeemed"...

                    "Fossil evidence and intensive biological analyses have demonstrated
                    beyond any reasonable doubt that birds are theropod dinosaurs."
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird#Dinosaurs_and_the_origin_of_birds

                    As you will probably know, the term "dinosaur" is derived from the
                    Greek words *deinos*, "terrible", and *saura*, "lizard".
                  • Sauwelios
                    Formerly we had two antitheses. I will recapitulate: Masculine--------------------Feminine Classical----------------------Modern
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 11, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Formerly we had two antitheses. I will recapitulate:

                      Masculine--------------------Feminine
                      Classical----------------------Modern
                      Strengthening---------------Weakening
                      Will to be terrible-----------Will to please
                      Positive ugliness------------Negative beauty
                      Phobos----------------------- Eros
                      Great passion----------------Small passion
                      Shame ("disgrace")----------Shame ("modesty")
                      Flow-------------------------- Ebb
                      Much force-------------------Little force
                      Aryan-------------------------Semitic
                      Prometheus (serpent)------Eve
                      Giver--------------------------Receiver
                      Awe--------------------------- Contempt
                      Hubris------------------------ Sin
                      Active-------------------------Passive

                      I will introduce one new pair in this list: Pride and Vanity. Vanity is
                      actually a lack of Pride. The vain (wo)man is primarily concerned with
                      public approval, whereas the proud man is indifferent to that. "Vanity"
                      is therefore a name for a relative lack of Pride; and "Pride", as
                      normally used, is the name for a relative abundance of it.

                      "Male pride" is of course a standing expression; and so, perhaps, is
                      "female vanity".

                      Pride-------------------------- Vanity

                      But I want to introduce a new opposition here. In fact, it has already
                      been announced in the preceding message. Again, it concerns a
                      quantitative difference. Yes, there is an even higher realm than the
                      realm hitherto designated as the "masculine".

                      Consider again the passage about heroes like Siegfried quoted in the
                      preceding message. In message # 76, I quoted the exact same passage, and
                      immediately continued:

                      >>In the Kabalistic Tree of Life, a glyph which on the microcosmic level
                      represents the human body, the central sphere is called the
                      Christ-center, and is the point where the lower and the higher self
                      connect. The lower self is the ego, the conscious self; the higher self
                      is the unconscious self, sometimes simply called "the Self". Avatars or
                      incarnations of God, like Christ, Krishna, etc., are symbols of the
                      Self<<.

                      The Christ is such a symbol of the Self; in fact, he "is" the Self of
                      *Western* man, according to Jung (according to Miguel Serrano). But as I
                      said in message # 77;

                      >>That Jung thought Christ was a symbol of the Self does not mean he
                      though everything was right with it:

                      "In the empirical self, light and darkness form a paradoxical unity [cf.
                      Ecce Homo, on TSZ, 3]. In the Christian concept, on the other hand, the
                      archetype is hopelessly split into two irreconcilable halves".
                      [Christ, a Symbol of the Self (from *Aion*).]

                      These two halves are the Christ and the Antichrist.<<

                      This is not completely right; that is to say, those two halves are not
                      *simply* the Christ and the Antichrist:

                      "For anyone who has a positive attitude towards Christianity the problem
                      of the Antichrist is a hard nut to crack. It is nothing less than the
                      counterstroke of the devil, provoked by God's Incarnation; for the devil
                      attains his true stature as the adversary of Christ, and hence of God,
                      only after the rise of Christianity, while as late as the Book of Job he
                      was still one of God's sons and on familiar terms with Yahweh.
                      Psychologically the case is clear, since the dogmatic figure of Christ
                      is so sublime and spotless that everything else turns dark beside it. It
                      is, in fact, so one-sidedly perfect that it demands a psychic complement
                      to restore the balance. This inevitable opposition led very early to the
                      doctrine of the two sons of God, of whom the elder was called
                      Satanaël. The coming of the Antichrist is not just a prophetic
                      prediction -- it is an inexorable psychological law".
                      [Jung, ibid.]

                      Further on in this chapter, Jung writes:

                      "In the (Jewish-Christian?) apocalypse, the "ascension of Isaiah," we
                      find, in the middle section, Isaiah's vision of the seven heavens
                      through which he was rapt. First he saw Sammaël and his hosts,
                      against whom a "great battle" was raging in the firmament."

                      This is the battle described in Book VI of Paradise Lost. There the
                      leading angel is of course called Satan.

                      The Dutch poet Adriaan Roland Holst once wrote:

                      "Had Lucifer been vain, he would never have fallen. Pride caused him to
                      fall, until he split the nucleus of life, and arose in the second pride:
                      the pride of death."

                      The last bit is probably a reference to the Angel of Death, Samael or
                      Sammael, who, as Wikipedia tells me, is said to have "tempted Eve in the
                      guise of the Serpent" (this corresponds to Book IX of Paradise Lost,
                      where the angel tempting Eve is again Satan, of course).

                      You may have noticed that this Group has a new look. In the Home
                      section, you will see a new picture: it's Satan in His Original Glory,
                      by William Blake. Let us again invoke Blake's "Proverb of Hell": "The
                      pride of the peacock is the glory of God." The peacock is the male of
                      its species; the female is called "peahen". (Note that again the
                      masculine version is called by the general name, as with "pride" and
                      "vanity".) The peacock's tail -- indeed, even the *peahen's* tail -- can
                      be terrifying:

                      "The female can also display her plumage to ward off female competition
                      or danger to her young."
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock

                      And yet when a person is compared to a peacock, what is meant is that he
                      is *vain*, not proud. Likewise, Satan in his "original glory" was still
                      vain, not proud; when he got truly proud his pride caused him to fall.
                      Notice how feminine Satan in His Original Glory looks!

                      The "glory" of the *Christian* God is vanity, not pride. As soon as
                      Satan got proud, he was cast out of heaven: "God" could not stand a
                      proud, masculine being beside "him"! Compare the following:

                      "The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, every grown man of
                      them, and leave the city to beardless lads; for they have cast out
                      Hermodorus, the best man among them, saying, "We will have none who is
                      best among us; if there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among
                      others.""
                      [Heraclitus.]


                      Blake's God, however, was not the Christian God:

                      "But in the Book of Job, Milton's Messiah is call'd Satan.
                      For this history has been adopted by both parties.
                      It indeed appeared to Reason as if Desire was cast out; but the Devil's
                      account is, that the Messiah fell, & formed a heaven of what he stole
                      from the Abyss.
                      This is shewn in the Gospel, where he prays to the Father to send the
                      comforter, or Desire, that Reason may have Ideas to build on, the
                      Jehovah of the Bible being no other than he who dwells in flaming fire."
                      [Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.]

                      Originally, Blake had written "no other than the Devil who dwells in
                      flaming fire"; but he had expunged "the Devil", preferring to keep it
                      implicit. What is implied is the the Jehovah of the Bible is the Devil,
                      though, and that therefore the Devil is the true God. Compare Nietzsche:

                      "Let us remove supreme goodness from the concept of God: it is unworthy
                      of a God. [...] No! God the *supreme power* -- that suffices! Everything
                      follows from it, "the world" follows from it!"
                      [The Will to Power, section 1037.]

                      As for the Jehovah (Yahweh) of the Bible: Jung writes the following
                      about him.

                      "Perhaps we may risk the conjecture that problem of the Yahwistic
                      God-image, which had been constellated in men's minds ever since the
                      Book of Job, continued to be discussed in Gnostic circles and in
                      syncretistic Judaism generally, all the more eagerly as the Christian
                      answer to this question -- namely the unanimous decision in favour of
                      God's goodness -- did not satisfy the conservative Jews. In this
                      respect, therefore, it is significant that the doctrine of the two
                      antithetical sons of God originated with the Jewish Christians living in
                      Palestine. Inside Christianity itself the doctrine spread to the
                      Bogomils and the Cathars; in Judaism it influenced religious speculation
                      and found lasting expression in the two sides of the cabalistic Tree of
                      the Sephiroth, which were named *hesed* (love) and *din* (justice)."
                      [Jung, ibid.]

                      Actually, hesed and din are the names of two opposing Sephiroth
                      ("spheres") on the Tree of Life; the two sides, both of which encompass
                      three of such spheres, are actually called the Pillars of Mercy and of
                      Severity, respectively.

                      I quoted Jung in saying ""For anyone who has a positive attitude towards
                      Christianity the problem of the Antichrist is a hard nut to crack." But
                      for us Nietzscheans, who don't have a positive attitude toward
                      Christianity, the nut may seem easy to crack in the light of message #
                      77, where I wrote:


                      >> These two halves are the Christ and the Antichrist. Now the Church
                      had a "solution" to this onesidedness:

                      "Although the exclusion of the power of evil was something the Christian
                      consciousness was well aware of, all it lost in effect was an
                      insubstantial shadow, for, through the doctrine of the *privatio boni*
                      [privation of the good] first propounded by Origen, evil was
                      characterized as a mere diminution of good and thus deprived of
                      substance."
                      [ibid.]

                      We see here that "evil" is regarded as a lack of "good", even as cold is
                      a lack of heat. In this lies the key to our solution.

                      Good and evil are here regarded as *poles*. There are gradations: lesser
                      and greater evils, that is, lesser and greater privations of the good.
                      We Nietzscheans need only turn the poles around to effect a revaluation.

                      "[T]he Devil's account is, that the Messiah fell, & formed a heaven of
                      what he stole from the Abyss."
                      [Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.]

                      "Good", as opposed to "evil", is simply a euphemism for "weak". And we
                      can easily see that weakness is a -- relative -- lack of strength.
                      "Good" (weakness) is a privation of "evil" (strength). The Christ is not
                      the strong glare of light, but the soothing darkness (lack of light,
                      privation of light). The Antichrist on the other hand is the strong
                      glare of light:

                      "And verily, ye good and just! In you there is much to be laughed at,
                      and especially your fear of what hath hitherto been called "the devil!"
                      So alien are ye in your souls to what is great, that to you the Superman
                      would be frightful in his goodness!
                      And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the
                      wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
                      Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and
                      my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman -- a devil!"
                      [TSZ, Of Manly Prudence.]<<

                      I have now quoted message # 77 in its entirety in this message, so you
                      don't have to look it up anymore.

                      If it was this simple, we could discard the whole Pillar of Mercy and be
                      content to climb the Pillar of Severity. But it's not that simple. For
                      Zarathustra says:

                      "As yet hath his [the sublime one's] knowledge not learned to smile, and
                      to be without jealousy [compare the "envy" mentioned in Of War and
                      Warriors]; as yet hath his gushing passion not become calm in beauty.
                      Verily, not in satiety shall his longing cease and disappear, but in
                      beauty! Gracefulness [die Anmut, "charm"] belongeth to the
                      munificence of the magnanimous.
                      His arm across his head: thus should the hero repose; thus should he
                      also surmount his repose.
                      But precisely to the hero is beauty the hardest thing of all.
                      Unattainable is beauty by all ardent wills.
                      A little more, a little less: precisely this is much here, it is the
                      most here.
                      To stand with relaxed muscles and with unharnessed will: that is the
                      hardest for all of you, ye sublime ones!
                      When power becometh gracious [gnädig, "merciful"] and descendeth into
                      the visible -- I call such condescension, beauty.
                      And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful
                      one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
                      All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
                      Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good
                      because they have crippled paws!
                      The virtue of the pillar shalt thou strive after: more beautiful doth it
                      ever become, and more graceful [zart, "tender, gentle"] -- but
                      internally harder and more sustaining -- the higher it riseth.
                      Yea, thou sublime one, one day shalt thou also be beautiful, and hold up
                      the mirror to thine own beauty.
                      Then will thy soul thrill with divine desires; and there will be
                      adoration even in thy vanity!
                      For this is the secret of the soul: when the hero hath abandoned it,
                      then only approacheth it in dreams -- the super-hero."
                      [TSZ, Of the Sublime Ones.]

                      The last remark is a reference to Ariadne (the soul), who was abandoned
                      by Theseus (the hero) and then approached by Dionysus (the super-hero
                      [Über-Held]).

                      You will have noted the mention of vanity.

                      This is actually a description of the grand style. The pillar becomes
                      ever more beautiful (on the outside), and ever harder (on the inside).
                      It thus becomes more "severe" on the inside and more "merciful" on the
                      outside. It is therefore a "synthesis" of the pillars of mercy and of
                      severity. And indeed, there is a third pillar in the middle of the Tree
                      of Life, called the Pillar of Equilibrium. Jung cites the following
                      remark about Yahweh:

                      "God's left hand dashes to pieces; his right hand is glorious to save."
                      [Jung, ibid.]

                      On the human body, the left arm corresponds to the Sephira *din*, also
                      called *geburah*, "strength", which is the "katabolic Sephira", whereas
                      the right arm corresponds to the Sephira *hesed*, "love", which is the
                      "anabolic Sephira". Yahweh thus wields over both the "beautiful" (in the
                      negative sense), the pleasing, and the "ugly" -- the terrible. Now hear
                      Heidegger's "definition" of the grand style:

                      "In contrast to classicism, the classical is nothing that can be
                      immediately divined from a particular past period of art. It is instead
                      a basic structure of Dasein, which itself first creates the conditions
                      for any such period and must first open itself and devote itself to
                      those conditions. But the fundamental condition is an equally original
                      freedom with regard to the extreme opposites, chaos and law; not the
                      mere subjection of chaos to a form, but that mastery which enables the
                      primal wilderness of chaos and the primordiality of law to advance under
                      the same yoke, invariably bound to one another with equal necessity.
                      Such mastery is unconstrained disposition over that yoke, which is as
                      equally removed from the paralysis of form in what is dogmatic and
                      formalistic as from sheer rapturous tumult. Wherever unconstrained
                      disposition over that yoke is an event's self-imposed law, there is the
                      grand style".
                      [Heidegger, 'Nietzsche', Vol. I, chapter 17.]

                      I will analyse this passage in the follow-up to this message.
                    • Sauwelios
                      A little more, a little less: precisely this is much here, it is the most here. [TSZ, Of the Sublime Ones.] Whereas the hero wills ever more, Zarathustra
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 11, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "A little more, a little less: precisely this is much here, it is the
                        most here."
                        [TSZ, Of the Sublime Ones.]

                        Whereas the hero wills ever more, Zarathustra here says only a
                        *little* more, or even a little *less*, is much and the most here.
                        Moderation.


                        "To stand with relaxed muscles and with unharnessed will: that is the
                        hardest for all of you, ye sublime ones!"
                        [ibid.]

                        And therefore that which "ye" should strive for.


                        "When power becometh gracious [gnädig, "merciful"] and descendeth into
                        the visible -- I call such condescension, beauty."
                        [ibid.]

                        When the invisible God descends into the sphere of Tiphareth, the
                        Christ-center...


                        "And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful
                        one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
                        All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
                        Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves
                        good because they have crippled paws!"
                        [ibid.]

                        'All ugliness do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the
                        beautiful.
                        Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves
                        beautiful because they have atrophied organs of attack and defense!'

                        Now as for Heidegger.

                        "In contrast to classicism, the classical is nothing that can be
                        immediately divined from a particular past period of art. It is
                        instead a basic structure of Dasein, which itself first creates the
                        conditions for any such period and must first open itself and devote
                        itself to those conditions. But the fundamental condition is an
                        equally original freedom with regard to the extreme opposites, chaos
                        and law; not the mere subjection of chaos to a form, but that mastery
                        which enables the primal wilderness of chaos and the primordiality of
                        law to advance under the same yoke, invariably bound to one another
                        with equal necessity. Such mastery is unconstrained disposition over
                        that yoke, which is as equally removed from the paralysis of form in
                        what is dogmatic and formalistic as from sheer rapturous tumult.
                        Wherever unconstrained disposition over that yoke is an event's
                        self-imposed law, there is the grand style".
                        [Heidegger, 'Nietzsche', Vol. I, chapter 17.]

                        The classical is a basic structure of Dasein. *Dasein*, which usually
                        means "existence" in German, in Heidegger refers to the human being,
                        which he conceives as a "being-there" (Da-sein).

                        This "structure" of Dasein first creates the conditions for any
                        classical period of art (and thereby for any period of art as a
                        whole), and must open itself and devote itself to those conditions. So
                        it must devote itself to what it has itself created.

                        The fundamental one among these conditions is a freedom which is
                        equally original toward the extreme opposites, chaos and law. Chaos is
                        not simply subjected to law (to a form), but this freedom is a mastery
                        "which enables the primal wilderness of chaos and the primordiality
                        of law to advance under the same yoke". It thus subjects, or rather
                        *sub-jugates* (literally), both chaos and law. This does not mean they
                        are subjugated with *force*, though; they are *enabled* to advance
                        together under the same yoke -- almost as if they would do so
                        voluntarily. Compare again Of the Sublime Ones, where Zarathustra says:

                        "As the bull ought he [the sublime one] to do; and his happiness
                        should smell of the earth, and not of contempt for the earth.
                        As a white bull would I like to see him, which, snorting and lowing,
                        walketh before the plough-share: and his lowing should also laud all
                        that is earthly!"

                        Note that this is the same sublime one who was previously compared to
                        a "tiger". The tiger represents chaos, the terrifying aspect of
                        reality. Why should it willingly advance under a yoke?

                        In Hinduism, the steed of the goddess Durga is a tiger. "She is [...]
                        considered the fiercer, demon-fighting form of Shiva's wife, goddess
                        Parvati." (Wikipedia, 'Durga'.) Shiva's steed is a white bull. This
                        suggests the "tiger" is still relatively feminine (weak) when compared
                        to the "white bull". Shiva, though a supremely masculine deity (he is
                        worshipped as the *lingam*, a fallus symbol), has decidedly
                        androgynous characteristics. This is because he is a 'master'
                        (ishvara), who enables both the "masculine" (the terrible) and the
                        "feminine" (the pleasing) to advance under the same yoke.

                        Heidegger continues:

                        "Such mastery is unconstrained disposition [Walten, "wielding"] over
                        that yoke, which is as equally removed from the paralysis of form in
                        what is dogmatic and formalistic as from sheer rapturous tumult
                        [Wagner]. Wherever unconstrained disposition over that yoke is an
                        event's self-imposed law, there is the grand style".

                        It is self-imposed because it is the fundamental condition to which
                        what had created it is itself devoted.


                        P.S.: The statement "Beauty is terror" is actually from The Secret
                        History, by Donna Tartt -- a good novel, though I like her second one,
                        The Little Friend, much better -- reading that was profoundly satisfying.

                        The statement "Every thing of beauty is a sight to behold" is really a
                        rendition of a statement by Moody Lawless.
                      • Sauwelios
                        ... wrote: {snipped} ... I think now that which does not refer to a basic structure of Dasein , but simply to Dasein . At least that makes a lot more sense
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 12, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                          wrote: {snipped}
                          >
                          > This "structure" of Dasein first creates the conditions for any
                          > classical period of art (and thereby for any period of art as a
                          > whole), and must open itself and devote itself to those conditions.

                          I think now that "which" does not refer to "a basic structure of
                          Dasein", but simply to "Dasein". At least that makes a lot more sense
                          to me.
                        • Sauwelios
                          ... wrote: {snipped} ... Typo alert! The German word for respect is *Ehrfurcht*, literally honour-fright . Of course I would not dedicate an entire post to
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 26, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                            wrote: {snipped}
                            >
                            > *Furcht*) or respect (German *Ehrfucht* -- these two German words

                            Typo alert! The German word for "respect" is *Ehrfurcht*, literally
                            "honour-fright".

                            Of course I would not dedicate an entire post to correcting a typo. In
                            the same message I said and quoted:

                            > There is thus a difference between shame in the sense of "modesty"
                            > (shyness, shame for one's "beauty") and shame in the sense of
                            > "disgrace" (shame for one's "ugliness").
                            >
                            > "My brethren in war! I love you from the very heart. I am, and was
                            > ever, your counterpart. And I am also your best enemy. So let me tell
                            > you the truth!
                            > I know the hatred and envy of your hearts. Ye are not great enough not
                            > to know of hatred and envy. Then be great enough not to be ashamed of
                            > them!
                            > [...]
                            > They call you heartless: but your heart is true, and I love the
                            > bashfulness of your goodwill. Ye are ashamed of your flow, and others
                            > are ashamed of their ebb.
                            > Ye are ugly? Well then, my brethren, take the sublime about you, the
                            > mantle of the ugly!"
                            > [Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of War and Warriors.]
                            >
                            > Much occasion for remarks again. First off, it is apparently "great",
                            > according to Zarathustra, to not be ashamed. Question: does this apply
                            > to both forms of shame, or only to *aiskhyne*? We shall look into this
                            > question later.
                            >
                            > Secondly, the phrase "the bashfulness of your goodwill" is *die Scham
                            > eurer Herzlichkeit* in German, literally "the shame of your
                            > cordiality". Compare the following:
                            >
                            > "With hard men intimacy is a thing of shame -- and something precious."
                            > [BGE 167, entire.]
                            >

                            But in 'Of the Sublime Ones', Zarathustra says:

                            "When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible -- I
                            call such condescension, beauty."

                            The word here translated as "gracious" is *gnädig*, "merciful"
                            (compare "divine grace"). We should therefore think of the terrible,
                            invisible God Yahweh here, who descended into the visible in the form
                            of his avatar, Christ (note that *avatara* means "descent" in Sanskrit).

                            What I'm trying to say here is that the beauty of the powerful one
                            does not consist in his ascending to an even greater height than
                            positive ugliness, but in descending into the sphere of negative
                            beauty. His *will* to descend there is terrible, though:

                            "Passion for power [Herrschsucht, "addiction to ruling"]: but who
                            would call it passion, when the height longeth to stoop for power!
                            Verily, nothing sick or diseased [Süchtiges] is there in such longing
                            and descending!
                            That the lonesome height may not forever remain lonesome and
                            self-sufficing; that the mountains may come to the valleys and the
                            winds of the heights to the plains:
                            Oh, who could find the right prenomen and honouring name for such
                            longing! "Bestowing virtue"--thus did Zarathustra once name the
                            unnamable."
                            [Of the Three Evils.]

                            And in his speech Of the Bestowing Virtue, Zarathustra this longing thus:

                            "When your heart overfloweth broad and full like the river, a blessing
                            and a danger to the lowlanders: there is the origin of your virtue."

                            An ab-undance that may quench the thirst of the lowlanders, but may
                            also drown them (hence "a blessing and a danger"). This "loving one's
                            will" (ibid.) is not a will to please: for it does not focus on what
                            the receiver might want, but on what the giver wants: to give, even if
                            it means to flood the receiver. Thus such "loving ones" are selfish in
                            the good sense:

                            "the wholesome, healthy selfishness, that springeth from the powerful
                            soul:--
                            From the powerful soul, to which the high body appertaineth, the
                            handsome, triumphing, refreshing body, around which everything
                            becometh a mirror".
                            [Of the Three Evils.]

                            This good selfishness is not only contrasted with bad selfishness (the
                            former wants to take in order to give; the latter wants to take in
                            order to have); it is also contrasted with selflessness:

                            "With its words of good and bad doth such self-enjoyment shelter
                            itself as with sacred groves; with the names of its happiness doth it
                            banish from itself everything contemptible.
                            Away from itself doth it banish everything cowardly; it saith:
                            "Bad--that is cowardly!" Contemptible seem to it the ever-solicitous,
                            the sighing, the complaining, and whoever pick up the most trifling
                            advantage. [Compare HATH 411, quoted in message # 245! That section
                            ties such concern with "trifling advantages" directly to the feminine.]
                            [...]
                            And spurious wisdom: so doth it call all the wit that slaves, and
                            hoary-headed and weary ones affect; and especially all the cunning,
                            spurious-witted, curious-witted foolishness of priests!
                            The spurious wise, however, all the priests, the world-weary, and
                            those whose souls are of feminine and servile nature--oh, how hath
                            their game all along abused selfishness!
                            And precisely that was to be virtue and was to be called virtue--to
                            abuse selfishness! And "selfless"--so did they wish themselves with
                            good reason, all those world-weary cowards and cross-spiders!
                            But to all those cometh now the day, the change, the sword of
                            judgment, the great noontide: then shall many things be revealed!
                            And he who proclaimeth the ego wholesome and holy, and selfishness
                            blessed, verily, he, the prognosticator, speaketh also what he
                            knoweth: "Behold, it cometh, it is nigh, the great noontide!"
                            Thus spake Zarathustra."
                            [ibid.]
                          • Sauwelios
                            The powerful one s shame for his goodwill (cordiality) and intimacy is, like the negatively beautiful one s shame for her beauty, *aidos*, bashfulness. And
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 26, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The powerful one's shame for his "goodwill" (cordiality) and intimacy
                              is, like the negatively beautiful one's shame for her beauty, *aidos*,
                              bashfulness. And this bashfulness is shyness, a form of fear. The
                              negatively beautiful one, being beautiful due to the atrophy of her
                              organs of attack and defense, shies away because she is afraid of
                              being hurt; likewise, the powerful one hides his "goodwill" behind his
                              hardness, his ugliness, because he's afraid of being hurt in his soft
                              spot. He is thus like Cancer in astrology: the Crab, who has an
                              exo-skeleton, preserving his soft flesh inside his ugly shell.

                              "The eye looks vulgar
                              Inside its ugly shell.
                              Come out in the open
                              In all of your Brilliance."
                              [Jim Morrison, The Lords.]

                              Thus Zarathustra spurs the powerful one to overcome his weakness:

                              "And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful
                              one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
                              [...]
                              The virtue of the pillar shalt thou strive after: more beautiful doth
                              it ever become, and more graceful--but internally harder and more
                              sustaining--the higher it riseth."
                              [Of the Sublime Ones.]

                              The pillar is beautiful on the outside and hard on the inside -- the
                              converse of the Crab.

                              Visibility of happiness, and (psychological) nakedness, are terrifying
                              because they suggest that the one who allows his happiness to become
                              visible is *strong enough* to show his sensitive side.
                            • perpetualburn30298
                              ... Egg. ... So does it follow that woman can not command? Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit. For it involves independence; but in
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 20, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > In Miguel Serrano's book NOS, a conversation between him and Jung is
                                > recorded. In the course of that, Jung says:
                                >
                                > "Eros was united with his Beloved inside the Great Orphic, Cosmic Egg:
                                > *Phanes, Erika Paios*. *Eros* unites, but *Phobos*, fear, hatred
                                > (nothing is closer to love than hatred) disunites, leads to
                                > separation, breaks the Cosmic Egg. So as to acquire consciousness,
                                > individuality, so as to be able one day to give a face to the Cosmic
                                Egg."
                                > [from the chapter 'Another Turn of the Wheel'.]
                                >
                                > The Greek *phobos* (as in "hydrophobic", water-repellent) may mean
                                > both "fear" and "hatred", according to Jung; and it stands opposed to
                                > *eros*. The thing is that *eros* seeks to diminish the gulf between
                                > two beings, whereas *phobos* seeks to widen it. That gulf arouses the
                                > *pathos of distance*.
                                >
                                > "*Erôs* arises in response to the gulf that separates the exemplary
                                > human being from all others, and it naturally aspires to bridge this
                                > gulf. While the self-overflowing emanations of the will establish and
                                > preserve the *pathos* of distance, *erôs* strives to eliminate or
                                > minimize the distance between lover and beloved."
                                > [Daniel W. Conway, 'Love's labor's lost' (essay).]
                                >
                                > Thus an "ugly" being, as measured by the negative concept of beauty --
                                > feminine beauty --, may arouse the *eros* of beings that are
                                > "beautiful" in this sense. It is precisely its *phobos*, its
                                > fearsomeness, -- that which sets it apart, and *wills* to do so --
                                > that arouses it: by creating a gulf, a barrier, a *desert* around it:
                                >
                                > "The greatness of an artist cannot be measured by the "beautiful
                                > feelings" he arouses: leave that idea to females. But according to the
                                > degree to which he approaches the grand style, to which he is capable
                                > of the grand style. This style has this in common with great passion,
                                > that it disdains to please[!]; that it forgets to persuade; that it
                                > commands; that it *wills*-- To become master of the chaos one is; to
                                > compel one's chaos to become form; to become logical, simple,
                                > unambiguous, mathematics, *law*--that is the grand ambition here.-- It
                                > repels[!]; such men of force are no longer loved--a desert [Einöde,
                                > "solitude"] spreads around them, a silence, a fear as in the presence
                                > of some great sacrilege--"
                                > [The Will to Power, section 842.]
                                >
                                > When Nietzsche says "such men of force are no longer loved" (nichts
                                > reizt mehr die Liebe zu solchen Gewaltmenschen, "nothing arouses the
                                > love toward such force-men anymore"), he means they are no longer
                                > *amiable* to anyone anymore; they do arouse "love" in the sense of
                                > *erôs*...
                                >
                                > "Other forms of love, such as *agape*, the universal, spiritual love
                                > praised in the Gospel of John, may certainly play an important role
                                > within specific cultural settings, but they cannot serve to found or
                                > constitute culture. The founding of culture requires as its catalyst
                                > nothing less than *erôs*, the most powerful, discriminating, egoistic
                                > and dangerous form of love known to humankind".
                                > [Conway, ibid.]
                                >
                                > And to return to the relationship between great passion and the grand
                                > style: Nietzsche elsewhere writes:
                                >
                                > "A period when the old masquerade and moral decking-up of the affects
                                > arouses antipathy: naked nature[!]; where the decisiveness of quanta
                                > of power is simply admitted (as determining rank); where the grand
                                > style appears again as the consequence of grand passion."
                                > [The Will to Power, section 1024.]
                                >
                                > Here we see Nietzsche's view is indeed (compare the "problem"
                                > mentioned in the preceding message) wholly quantitative. And indeed,
                                > Nietzsche elsewhere distinguishes between man and woman precisely on
                                > the basis of the quantity of their passion:
                                >
                                > "*The female intellect.* -- Women's intellect is manifested as perfect
                                > control [not unsettled by passion], presence of mind [unclouded by
                                > passion], and utilization of all advantages [because less passion
                                > means less advantages]. [... W]omen have the intelligence, men the
                                > heart and passion. This is not contradicted by the fact that men
                                > actually get so much farther with their intelligence: they have the
                                > deeper, more powerful drives; these take their intelligence, which is
                                > in itself something passive, forward."
                                > [Human, All Too Human, section 411.]
                                >
                                > Spiritually, man and woman are gradations which *behave* as opposites.
                                > The difference between them follows from a difference in *passion*:
                                > man has much, woman has little. And the great style follows from great
                                > passion. Therefore woman is incapable of the grand style.
                                >
                                So does it follow that woman can not command?

                                "Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit. For it
                                involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual greatness,
                                independence ought not to be allowed, it causes mischief, even through
                                its desire to do good and practice "justice." Small spirits must
                                obey--hence cannot possess greatness" WTP 984

                                Do you think that greatness of soul equates with grand style?



                                "When Nietzsche says "such men of force are no longer loved" (nichts
                                reizt mehr die Liebe zu solchen Gewaltmenschen, "nothing arouses the
                                love toward such force-men anymore"), he means they are no longer
                                *amiable* to anyone anymore; they do arouse "love" in the sense of
                                *erôs*..."

                                I found this quote from WTP that seems to fit with that idea.

                                "Not to allow oneself to be misled by blue eyes or heaving bosoms:
                                greatness of soul has nothing romantic about it. And unfortunately
                                nothing at all amiable." WTP 981

                                What's this other Nietzsche board you go to?
                              • Sauwelios
                                ... Yes, very good, that has to do with all these things. Compare this: Beauty is for the artist something outside all orders of rank, because in beauty
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 21, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
                                  <perpetualburn30298@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
                                  > wrote: {snipped}
                                  > >
                                  > > Spiritually, man and woman are gradations which *behave* as opposites.
                                  > > The difference between them follows from a difference in *passion*:
                                  > > man has much, woman has little. And the great style follows from great
                                  > > passion. Therefore woman is incapable of the grand style.
                                  > >
                                  > So does it follow that woman can not command?
                                  >

                                  Yes, very good, that has to do with all these things. Compare this:

                                  "'Beauty' is for the artist something outside all orders of rank,
                                  because in beauty opposites are tamed; the highest sign of power,
                                  namely power over opposites; moreover, without tension: -- that
                                  violence is no longer needed; that everything follows, OBEYS so easily
                                  and so PLEASANTLY -- that is what delights the artist's will to power."
                                  [The Will to Power, section 803, entire; emphasis added.]

                                  The artist is here represented as very *masculine*. However, this is
                                  not about the artist *type* -- the "artist" in the narrow sense. For
                                  "artists" in the narrow sense are always relatively feminine: they are
                                  always *dependent*:

                                  "They have in all ages been valets to a morality or philosophy or
                                  religion; quite apart from the fact that, often enough, they
                                  unfortunately have been the all-too-adaptable courtiers of groups of
                                  their followers and, above all, their patrons and fine-nosed
                                  flatterers of old or even newly arriving powers. At the very least,
                                  they always need a means of protection, a support, an already
                                  established authority: the artist never stands by himself -- standing
                                  alone contravenes his deepest instincts. Hence, for example, Richard
                                  Wagner took the philosopher Schopenhauer -- once "his time had come"
                                  -- as his point man, his protection".
                                  [Genealogy III, 6.]

                                  The *real* artists, then, are *not* of the artist *type;

                                  "The most powerful human beings have always inspired architects; the
                                  architect has always been under the spell of power. His buildings are
                                  supposed to render pride visible, and the victory over gravity, the
                                  will to power; architecture is a kind of eloquence of power in forms,
                                  now persuading, even flattering, now only COMMANDING. The highest
                                  feeling of power and sureness finds expression in what has GRAND
                                  STYLE. The power which no longer needs any proof; which spurns
                                  pleasing; which does not answer lightly; which feels no witness near;
                                  which lives oblivious of all opposition to it; which reposes within
                                  *itself*, fatalistically, a law among laws: *that* speaks of itself as
                                  grand style.--"
                                  [Twilight, 'Skirmishes', 11.]

                                  The real artists are the most powerful human beings: it is *their*
                                  souls which are reflected in artworks in the grand style.


                                  > "Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit. For it
                                  > involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual greatness,
                                  > independence ought not to be allowed, it causes mischief, even through
                                  > its desire to do good and practice "justice." Small spirits must
                                  > obey--hence cannot possess greatness" WTP 984
                                  >
                                  > Do you think that greatness of soul equates with grand style?
                                  >

                                  Well, not equates, but yes, it is a *great* soul which is reflected in
                                  artworks in the grand style. I will interpret this whole passage.

                                  "Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit."

                                  This means the goodness and "justice" mentioned farther on do not
                                  reflect greatness of soul.

                                  "For it involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual
                                  greatness, independence ought not to be allowed,"

                                  This means independence *is* separable from greatness of spirit
                                  ['Geist', which may also be translated as "intellect"].

                                  "it causes mischief, even through its desire to do good and practice
                                  "justice.""

                                  Greatness of soul does not consist in, say, the keeping alive of the
                                  weak and the failures (see The Antichrist, section 2) out of
                                  compassion. It *does* consist in helping them to perish.

                                  "Small spirits must obey--hence cannot possess greatness"

                                  From all this it follows that the great man must also be spiritually
                                  great. As Kaufmann says in his footnote to this section, "all the men
                                  he most admired were, without exception, great intellects--but not
                                  merely great intellects."

                                  What were they, then, on top of being great intellects? Great bodies
                                  -- great sensualities.


                                  >
                                  >
                                  > "When Nietzsche says "such men of force are no longer loved" (nichts
                                  > reizt mehr die Liebe zu solchen Gewaltmenschen, "nothing arouses the
                                  > love toward such force-men anymore"), he means they are no longer
                                  > *amiable* to anyone anymore; they do arouse "love" in the sense of
                                  > *erôs*..."
                                  >
                                  > I found this quote from WTP that seems to fit with that idea.
                                  >
                                  > "Not to allow oneself to be misled by blue eyes or heaving bosoms:
                                  > greatness of soul has nothing romantic about it. And unfortunately
                                  > nothing at all amiable." WTP 981
                                  >

                                  Exactly: consider helping the weak and the failures to perish.


                                  > What's this other Nietzsche board you go to?
                                  >

                                  It wouldn't be a smart move to refer the little members my group has
                                  to a forum, wouldn't it! Hint: I've already referred to it by its
                                  actual name. I'm incognito there, by the way.
                                • perpetualburn30298
                                  ... opposites. ... great ... Could it be that the grand style has a biological origin? The re-absorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Sep 26, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
                                    > <perpetualburn30298@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
                                    > > wrote: {snipped}
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Spiritually, man and woman are gradations which *behave* as
                                    opposites.
                                    > > > The difference between them follows from a difference in *passion*:
                                    > > > man has much, woman has little. And the great style follows from
                                    great
                                    > > > passion. Therefore woman is incapable of the grand style.
                                    > > >
                                    > > So does it follow that woman can not command?
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Yes, very good, that has to do with all these things. Compare this:
                                    >
                                    > "'Beauty' is for the artist something outside all orders of rank,
                                    > because in beauty opposites are tamed; the highest sign of power,
                                    > namely power over opposites; moreover, without tension: -- that
                                    > violence is no longer needed; that everything follows, OBEYS so easily
                                    > and so PLEASANTLY -- that is what delights the artist's will to power."
                                    > [The Will to Power, section 803, entire; emphasis added.]
                                    >
                                    > The artist is here represented as very *masculine*. However, this is
                                    > not about the artist *type* -- the "artist" in the narrow sense. For
                                    > "artists" in the narrow sense are always relatively feminine: they are
                                    > always *dependent*:
                                    >
                                    > "They have in all ages been valets to a morality or philosophy or
                                    > religion; quite apart from the fact that, often enough, they
                                    > unfortunately have been the all-too-adaptable courtiers of groups of
                                    > their followers and, above all, their patrons and fine-nosed
                                    > flatterers of old or even newly arriving powers. At the very least,
                                    > they always need a means of protection, a support, an already
                                    > established authority: the artist never stands by himself -- standing
                                    > alone contravenes his deepest instincts. Hence, for example, Richard
                                    > Wagner took the philosopher Schopenhauer -- once "his time had come"
                                    > -- as his point man, his protection".
                                    > [Genealogy III, 6.]
                                    >
                                    > The *real* artists, then, are *not* of the artist *type;
                                    >
                                    > "The most powerful human beings have always inspired architects; the
                                    > architect has always been under the spell of power. His buildings are
                                    > supposed to render pride visible, and the victory over gravity, the
                                    > will to power; architecture is a kind of eloquence of power in forms,
                                    > now persuading, even flattering, now only COMMANDING. The highest
                                    > feeling of power and sureness finds expression in what has GRAND
                                    > STYLE. The power which no longer needs any proof; which spurns
                                    > pleasing; which does not answer lightly; which feels no witness near;
                                    > which lives oblivious of all opposition to it; which reposes within
                                    > *itself*, fatalistically, a law among laws: *that* speaks of itself as
                                    > grand style.--"
                                    > [Twilight, 'Skirmishes', 11.]
                                    >
                                    > The real artists are the most powerful human beings: it is *their*
                                    > souls which are reflected in artworks in the grand style.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > "Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit. For it
                                    > > involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual greatness,
                                    > > independence ought not to be allowed, it causes mischief, even through
                                    > > its desire to do good and practice "justice." Small spirits must
                                    > > obey--hence cannot possess greatness" WTP 984
                                    > >
                                    > > Do you think that greatness of soul equates with grand style?
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Well, not equates, but yes, it is a *great* soul which is reflected in
                                    > artworks in the grand style. I will interpret this whole passage.
                                    >
                                    > "Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit."
                                    >
                                    > This means the goodness and "justice" mentioned farther on do not
                                    > reflect greatness of soul.
                                    >
                                    > "For it involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual
                                    > greatness, independence ought not to be allowed,"
                                    >
                                    > This means independence *is* separable from greatness of spirit
                                    > ['Geist', which may also be translated as "intellect"].
                                    >
                                    > "it causes mischief, even through its desire to do good and practice
                                    > "justice.""
                                    >
                                    > Greatness of soul does not consist in, say, the keeping alive of the
                                    > weak and the failures (see The Antichrist, section 2) out of
                                    > compassion. It *does* consist in helping them to perish.
                                    >
                                    > "Small spirits must obey--hence cannot possess greatness"
                                    >
                                    > From all this it follows that the great man must also be spiritually
                                    > great. As Kaufmann says in his footnote to this section, "all the men
                                    > he most admired were, without exception, great intellects--but not
                                    > merely great intellects."
                                    >
                                    > What were they, then, on top of being great intellects? Great bodies
                                    > -- great sensualities.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > "When Nietzsche says "such men of force are no longer loved" (nichts
                                    > > reizt mehr die Liebe zu solchen Gewaltmenschen, "nothing arouses the
                                    > > love toward such force-men anymore"), he means they are no longer
                                    > > *amiable* to anyone anymore; they do arouse "love" in the sense of
                                    > > *erôs*..."
                                    > >
                                    > > I found this quote from WTP that seems to fit with that idea.
                                    > >
                                    > > "Not to allow oneself to be misled by blue eyes or heaving bosoms:
                                    > > greatness of soul has nothing romantic about it. And unfortunately
                                    > > nothing at all amiable." WTP 981
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Exactly: consider helping the weak and the failures to perish.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > What's this other Nietzsche board you go to?
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > It wouldn't be a smart move to refer the little members my group has
                                    > to a forum, wouldn't it! Hint: I've already referred to it by its
                                    > actual name. I'm incognito there, by the way.
                                    >

                                    Could it be that the grand style has a biological origin?

                                    "The re-absorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment
                                    and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of
                                    power, the unrest of all forces towards the overcoming of resistances,
                                    the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has
                                    so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example,
                                    among the Brahmins)"


                                    The threat of woman then is a threat to this natural asceticism.
                                    Woman is a threat to the dammed up strength that comes from chastity.
                                    So when Nietzsche says it is better to keep woman at a distance, he is
                                    saying that the sexual urge when woman are close, interferes and may
                                    overpower the spiritual urge to create. Physical procreation is at
                                    odds with spiritual creation. Although I suppose someone could have
                                    the strength to keep woman close and keep that tension alive without
                                    indulging sexually, and thereby harvest energy for spiritual creation
                                    from this tension.

                                    BTW, I found that other Nietzsche forum you go to. I haven't signed up
                                    yet, but I have enjoyed watching the battles of wills between you and
                                    that Cezar fellow, hehe.
                                  • Sauwelios
                                    ... wrote: {snipped} ... In his Nachlass, in the only place he ever mentions aidos, as fas as I know, Nietzsche says: *Aidos* is the emotion [ Regung ] and
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Nov 22, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                                      wrote: {snipped}
                                      >
                                      > There is thus a difference between shame in the sense of "modesty"
                                      > (shyness, shame for one's "beauty") and shame in the sense of
                                      > "disgrace" (shame for one's "ugliness").
                                      >

                                      In his Nachlass, in the only place he ever mentions aidos, as fas as I
                                      know, Nietzsche says:

                                      "*Aidos* is the emotion ['Regung'] and shyness ['Scheu'; LEO
                                      translates this as "awe, dread, timidity"], not to [want to] offend
                                      gods, men, and eternal laws: that is, the instinct of *reverence*
                                      ['Ehrfurcht'] as customary with good [noble] men. A kind of
                                      *revulsion* at the *offending* of the honourable ['Ehrwürdigen'].

                                      "The Greek aversion against *immoderation* ['das Übermass'], in the
                                      joyful i[nstinct] of hubris, [against] the transgression ['die
                                      Überschreitung'] of one's *own* boundaries, is *most noble
                                      ['vornehm']*---and *paleo-aristocratic* ['altadelig']! The offending
                                      of aidos is a ghastly sight for those who are used to aidos."

                                      [Nachlass Spring-Summer 1883 7 [161].]


                                      I contend that *aidos*, however noble it may be when it's become
                                      second nature, is at bottom *shame for one's weakness*.

                                      > "My brethren in war! I love you from the very heart. I am, and was
                                      > ever, your counterpart. And I am also your best enemy. So let me tell
                                      > you the truth!
                                      > I know the hatred and envy of your hearts. Ye are not great enough not
                                      > to know of hatred and envy. Then be great enough not to be ashamed of
                                      > them!
                                      > [...]
                                      > They call you heartless: but your heart is true, and I love the
                                      > bashfulness of your goodwill. Ye are ashamed of your flow, and others
                                      > are ashamed of their ebb.
                                      > Ye are ugly? Well then, my brethren, take the sublime about you, the
                                      > mantle of the ugly!"
                                      > [Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of War and Warriors.]
                                      >
                                      > Much occasion for remarks again. First off, it is apparently "great",
                                      > according to Zarathustra, to not be ashamed. Question: does this apply
                                      > to both forms of shame, or only to *aiskhyne*? We shall look into this
                                      > question later.
                                      >

                                      I will look into this question now. I say it applies only to aiskhyne.
                                      It is great (noble) to feel shame (aidos) at one's own weakness, as it
                                      is *honest* to do so. One should compare Nietzsche's meditations on
                                      the Greek word *esthlos* in GM I, 5. (Parenthesis for the less astute:
                                      "honesty" is cognate with "honour".)

                                      Now we can paraphrase Zarathustra (TSZ, ibid.) as follows:

                                      "Shame---that is the distinction ['Vornehmheit'] of the weakling. Let
                                      your distinction be shamelessness!"

                                      The great should feel *aidos* for their relative weakness (e.g., their
                                      negative beauty), but no *aiskhyne* for their relative strength (e.g.,
                                      their positive ugliness).
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.