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

Hardness, Nakedness, Greatness

Expand Messages
  • sauwelios
    I think I d best begin by posting some messages about the Overman to which the other members may reply. I m thinking of just looking for Nietzsche and the
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I think I'd best begin by posting some messages about the Overman to
      which the other members may reply.

      I'm thinking of just looking for Nietzsche and the Overman (or perhaps
      better *Superman*) on the internet, by means of Google and the like,
      and then posting stuff like online encyclopedia entries in order to
      get a good picture of what popular opinion as well as scholarly
      prejudice says about the Overman; then correcting what is wrong.

      Let us start with Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on the Overman
      actually calls him *Übermensch*; that is a plus in my opinion. The
      first interesting (to me) remark Wikipedia makes is this:

      "There is no consensus regarding the precise meaning of the
      Übermensch, or even the overall importance of the concept in
      Nietzsche's thought."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

      What the precise meaning of the Overman is is this Group's intention
      to find out. What the overall importance of the concept is, I contend
      to have already *found* out: the highest type of man, whether under
      the name Übermensch or Genius or any other, is Nietzsche's main
      concern; his whole thought stands in its service.

      The next passage that I wish to highlight is this:

      "Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed every value-system hitherto known as a
      reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values
      which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming
      and creative."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch#The_Death_of_God_and_the_Creation_of_New_Values

      Every value-system hitherto known? I think not. How about the
      Dionysian value-system? No, I divine in this statement an implicit
      error that is often made explicit: that there hasn't been an Overman
      ever before.

      This error actually originates from Thus Spake Zarathustra (as do some
      other prevalent errors) - or rather, from a flawed reading of
      Zarathustra. This is the passage in question:

      "Never yet hath there been a Superman. Naked have I seen both of them,
      the greatest man and the smallest man: All-too-similar are they still
      to each other. Verily, even the greatest found I - all-too-human!"
      [TSZ, Of the Priests.]

      This assertion is blatantly contradicted by one of Nietzsche's later
      writings, The Antichrist or Antichristian (the German may mean both).
      And this is significant, because Nietzsche himself inextricably ties
      it to TSZ in its preface:

      "This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps not one of them is even
      living yet. Maybe they will be the readers who understand my Zarathustra".
      [The Antichrist(ian), Preface.]

      Now the passages that contradict the above assertion of Zarathustra
      are the following:

      "The problem I [...] pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the
      sequence of living beings (— man is an *end* —): but WHAT TYPE OF MAN
      shall be *bred*, shall be *willed*, for being higher in value,
      worthier of life, more certain of a future.
      Even in the past THIS HIGHER TYPE has appeared often: but as a
      fortunate accident, as an exception, never as something *willed*."
      [AC 3, with added emphasis.]

      And:

      "Mankind does not represent a development toward something better or
      stronger or higher, in the sense accepted today. "Progress" is merely
      a modern idea, that is, a false idea. The European of today is vastly
      inferior in value to the European of the Renaissance; further
      development is altogether *not* according to any necessity in the
      direction of elevation, enhancement, or strength.
      In another sense, success in individual cases is constantly
      encountered in the most widely different places and cultures; here we
      really do find A *HIGHER TYPE*: WHICH IS, in relation to mankind as a
      whole, A KIND OF OVERMAN [Übermensch]. Such fortunate accidents of
      great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be
      possible. And even whole families, tribes, or peoples may occasionally
      represent such a *bull's-eye*."
      [AC 4, added emphasis.]

      I do not doubt that the "higher type" mentioned in section 3 is the
      same higher type as is mentioned in section 4; and which is called
      there "a kind of Overman". Why does Nietzsche say "a *kind* of
      Overman" and not simply "an Overman"? - This is the first and only
      time in the book where Nietzsche uses the coinage "Übermensch". This
      means he has to explain it to those who don't know the term. This he
      does by the parenthesis "in relation to mankind as a whole". In
      relation to mankind as a whole, this type is a kind of "Overman" -
      that is, it ranks above mankind as a whole, above the average and even
      the somewhat above-average man: it is hierarchically "over man".

      Now why does Zarathustra say there has never been an Overman? He later
      even contradicts this *himself*, by his teaching of the eternal
      recurrence: according to this, if there has never been an Overman
      there never *will* be one either, so the earth will forever be
      meaningless. But this is not what Nietzsche means in The
      Antichrist(ian). He is not saying that "a kind of Overman" has already
      existed in the very distant past, which is the relatively near future;
      he's saying this higher type has already existed *in history*, that
      is, in the relatively *near* past. So why does Zarathustra say there
      has never been an Overman?

      My solution is that when Zarathustra mentions "the greatest man" in
      his speech Of the Priests, he does not mean the greatest man
      *literally* but the so-*called* greatest man. I found the clue that
      led to this solution in another speech in the same part:

      "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!
      Ah, I became tired of those highest and best ones: from their "height"
      did I long to be up, out, and away to the Superman!
      A horror came over me when I saw those best ones naked: then there
      grew for me the pinions to soar away into distant futures."
      [TSZ, Part 2, Of Manly Prudence.]

      Though he does not say "greatest" but "highest" and "best" men, he
      again uses the simile (is it merely a simile?) of nakedness. It was
      his seeing these "best" or "greatest" ones naked (and both words
      belong between quotation marks!) that aroused in him the longing for
      the Overman. But compare another speech, Of the Rabble (also from part 2):

      "What hath happened unto me? How have I freed myself from loathing?
      Who hath rejuvenated mine eye? How have I flown to the height where no
      rabble any longer sit at the wells?
      Did my loathing itself create for me wings and fountain-divining
      powers? Verily, to the loftiest height had I to fly, to find again the
      well of delight!
      Oh, I have found it, my brethren! Here ON THE LOFTIEST HEIGHT bubbleth
      up for me the well of delight! And there is a life at whose waters
      none of the rabble drink with me!
      Almost too violently dost thou flow for me, thou fountain of delight!
      And often emptiest thou the goblet again, in wanting to fill it!
      And yet must I learn to approach thee more modestly: far too violently
      doth my heart still flow towards thee:
      My heart on which my summer burneth, my short, hot, melancholy,
      over-happy summer: how my summer heart longeth for thy coolness!
      Past, the lingering distress of my spring! Past, the wickedness of my
      snowflakes in June! Summer have I become entirely, and summer-noontide!
      A summer on the loftiest height, with cold fountains and blissful
      stillness: oh, come, my friends, that the stillness may become more
      blissful!
      For THIS IS OUR HEIGHT AND OUR HOME: too high and steep do we here
      dwell for all uncleanly ones and their thirst.
      Cast but your pure eyes into the well of my delight, my friends! How
      could it become turbid thereby! It shall laugh back to you with its
      purity.
      On the tree of the future build we our nest; eagles shall bring us
      lone ones food in their beaks!
      Verily, no food of which the impure could be fellow-partakers! Fire,
      would they think they devoured, and burn their mouths!"

      Zarathustra and his friends, who can bathe their nakednesses joyfully
      [mit Lust] in the well of delight [Born der Lust]: are these not
      Overmen? Perhaps not: and this is why Zarathustra says, in part 3;

      ""Why so hard!" — said to the diamond one day the charcoal; "are we
      then not near relatives?" — Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask
      you: are ye then not — my brethren?
      Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation
      and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?
      And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day —
      conquer with me?
      And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how
      can ye one day — create with me?
      For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to
      press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax, —
      Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass, —
      harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.
      This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!"
      [Of Old and New Tables, 29.]

      Of course it can be objected to this reading that even if Zarathustra
      is an Overman, Zarathustra - Nietzsche's Zarathustra, at least - is a
      literary character, not a historical personage. To parry this
      objection it is necessary to quote one last passage:

      "The halcyon, the light feet, the omnipresence of malice and
      exuberance, and whatever else is typical of the type of Zarathustra, —
      none of this has ever before been dreamed of as essential to greatness."
      [Ecce Homo, Zarathustra, 6.]

      Now we see why Zarathustra said there had never been an Overman. The
      Overman had never been thought of *as an Overman*; that which had been
      thouhgt of as essential to greatness was still human, all-too-human -
      not human, Superhuman.

      And when Nietzsche says "never" here, what he means is "almost never";
      even as he often says "morality" when he only means slave or herd
      morality. For master morality is rare; only a *few* are masters. They
      are the exceptions; and Nietzsche means the Overman has not, as a
      *rule*, been thought of as great...
    • sauwelios
      When I say Perhaps not , I mean Perhaps his *friends* are not . Nietzsche evidently thought of Zarathustra as an Overman (cf. that section from Ecce Homo
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        When I say "Perhaps not", I mean "Perhaps his *friends* are not".
        Nietzsche evidently thought of Zarathustra as an Overman (cf. that
        section from Ecce Homo from which I quoted).
      • sauwelios
        A couple of thoughts. I quoted Nietzsche in saying: The problem I [...] pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings (— man is an
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          A couple of thoughts. I quoted Nietzsche in saying:

          "The problem I [...] pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the
          sequence of living beings (— man is an *end* —): but what type of man
          shall be *bred*, shall be *willed*, for being higher in value,
          worthier of life, more certain of a future. Even in the past this
          higher type has appeared often: but as a fortunate accident, as an
          exception, never as something *willed*."
          [AC 3.]

          And in this sense, too, there has "never" been an Overman: there has
          never been a *willed* Overman, a *bred* Overman. But even here we must
          not take "never" literally. For there have been exceptions. As
          Nietzsche says;

          "[S]uccess in individual cases is constantly encountered in the most
          widely different places and cultures; here we really do find a *higher
          type*: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman.
          Such fortunate accidents of great success have always been possible
          and will perhaps always be possible. And even whole families, tribes,
          or peoples may occasionally represent such a *bull's-eye*."
          [AC 4.]

          I suspect that by "tribes" and "peoples" he is thinking of the ancient
          Greeks in general and of Sparta in particular. As one Harry Neumann, a
          self-proclaimed nihilist, writes;

          "In Thucydides (I) a Spartan king, Archidamus, agrees that by nature
          all men are equal. But he insists that as mere human beings they are
          little better than lazy beasts. What makes them something that counts,
          according to Archidamus, is twenty-three years (from 7-30) of Spartan
          higher education, that is, twenty-three years of the harshest military
          training. Graduates of that education emerged as pious Spartan
          warriors, something infinitely more precious to Archidamus, than
          merely being human."
          [Neumann, Liberalism, Appendix.]

          And how Nietzschean is that! Did not Nietzsche write:

          "I should like to think the warlike man to be a *means* of the
          military genius and his labour again only a tool in the hands of that
          same genius; and not to him as absolute man and non-genius, but to him
          as a means of the genius — whose pleasure also can be to choose his
          tool's destruction as a mere pawn sacrificed on the strategist's
          chessboard — is due a degree of dignity, of that dignity namely, *to
          have been deemed worthy of being a means of the genius*. But what is
          shown here in a single instance is valid in the most general sense;
          every human being, with his total activity, only has dignity in so far
          as he is a tool of the genius, consciously or unconsciously; from this
          we may immediately deduce the ethical conclusion, that "man in
          himself," the absolute man possesses neither dignity, nor rights, nor
          duties; only as a wholly determined being serving unconscious purposes
          can man excuse his existence."
          [The Greek State (1872).]

          Thus the "absolute man", according to Nietzsche, the "mere human
          being", to speak with Neumann or Archidamus, is worthless in himself;
          it is only the (military) genius that has value and can thereby
          *bestow* value; mere human beings only have value insofar as they
          serve the genius, the higher human being - the Overman.

          Thus far Sparta, for now. In the light of section 3 of The
          Antichrist(ian), we may understand Zarathustra's statement at the end
          of part 1 of TSZ:

          "Awake and hearken, ye lonesome ones! From the future come winds with
          stealthy pinions, and to fine ears good tidings are proclaimed.
          Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a
          people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people
          arise: - and out of it the Superman."
          [Of the Bestowing Virtue, 2.]

          Are these seceding ones not individual instances of the "fortunate
          accidents of great success" mentioned in AC 4? Not necessarily. They
          are simply all those who believe in the superiority of such instances
          over average (and even most above-average) individuals. Of course,
          like everyone but the very lowest man, they *are* relative Overman,
          but not all of them belong to the Overman *type*. When these
          individuals, people who believe in the superiority of the latter, find
          each other and form a people, still only the highest exemplars of that
          people will be of the Overman type. And because it is the aim of this
          people to further the Overman type, that type will arise out of it -
          be bred by it.
        • sauwelios
          I have to make a clarification. In the speech Of Manly Prudence, why could not Zarathustra, by the highest and best ones mean the *actually* highest and best
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I have to make a clarification. In the speech Of Manly Prudence, why
            could not Zarathustra, by the "highest and best ones" mean the
            *actually* highest and best ones? And that the Overman does not yet
            exist (for if he did, *he* would of course be the highest and best
            one)? Why should "highest" and "best" be put within quotation marks?
            In order to answer this, it is necessary to quote that passage again,
            this time in a slightly larger context:

            "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!
            Ah, I became tired of those highest and best ones: from their "height"
            did I long to be up, out, and away to the Superman!
            A horror came over me when I saw those best ones naked: then there
            grew for me the pinions to soar away into distant futures.
            Into more distant futures, into more southern souths than ever artist
            dreamed of: thither, where gods are ashamed of all clothes!
            But disguised do I want to see you, ye neighbours and fellowmen, and
            well-attired and vain and estimable, as "the good and just;"And
            disguised will I myself sit amongst you - that I may mistake you and
            myself: for that is my last manly prudence.
            Thus spake Zarathustra."

            Here we see that these "best ones" are the good and just - which
            Zarathustra eventually does place between quotation marks. They are
            only the so-*called* "good and just" - they call *themselves* "good
            and just!"

            "O my brethren! With whom lieth the greatest danger to the whole human
            future? Is it not with the good and just? —
            As those who say and feel in their hearts: "We already know what is
            good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek thereafter!
            And whatever harm the wicked may do, the harm of the good is the
            harmfulest harm!
            And whatever harm the world-maligners may do, the harm of the good is
            the harmfulest harm!
            O my brethren, into the hearts of the good and just looked some one
            once on a time, who said: "They are the Pharisees." But people did not
            understand him.
            The good and just themselves were not free to understand him; their
            spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience. The stupidity of the
            good is unfathomably wise [*klug*, "clever, cunning". This is a
            variation on something he said earlier, namely "The stupidity of the
            good is unfathomable"].
            It is the truth, however, that the good *must* be Pharisees — they
            have no choice!
            The good *must* crucify him who deviseth his own virtue! *That* is the
            truth!
            The second one, however, who discovered their country — the country,
            heart and soil of the good and just, — it was he who asked: "Whom do
            they hate most?"
            The *creator*, hate they most, him who breaketh the tables and old
            values, the breaker, — him they call the law-breaker [*Verbrecher*,
            "criminal"].
            For the good — they *cannot* create; they are always the beginning of
            the end: —
            They crucify him who writeth new values on new tables, they sacrifice
            unto *themselves* the future — they crucify the whole human future!
            The good — they have always been the beginning of the end."
            [TSZ 3, Of Old and New Tables, 26.]

            From this it follows that these so-called "good and just" are in
            nowise the *actual* good and just.

            The one who asked "Whom do they hate most?" was Zarathustra himself:

            "I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to
            follow themselves — and to the place where I will.
            A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to
            speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd's herdsman
            and hound!
            To allure many from the herd — for that purpose have I come. The
            people and the herd must be angry with me: a robber shall Zarathustra
            be called by the herdsmen.
            Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen,
            I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.
            Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up
            their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker: — he, however, is
            the creator.
            Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who
            breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker: —
            he, however, is the creator.
            Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses — and not herds or
            believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh — those who
            grave new values on new tables.
            Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is
            ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so
            he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.
            Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their
            sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and
            evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.
            Fellow-creators, Zarathustra seeketh; fellow-reapers and
            fellow-rejoicers, Zarathustra seeketh: what hath he to do with herds
            and herdsmen and corpses!"
            [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]

            The one who said "They are the Pharisees", the first one who
            discovered their land, was of course Jesus:

            "[The Jews] created an important new posture: the priest at the head
            of the chandala - against the *noble orders*...
            Christianity [that is, Jesus' teaching and way of life] drew the
            ultimate conclusion of this movement: even in the Jewish priesthood it
            still sensed caste, the privileged, the noble - it *abolished the
            priest*...
            Christ is the chandala who repudiates the priest... The chandala who
            redeems himself..."
            [The Will to Power, trans. Kaufmann, with my amendations (following
            the German text).]

            This self-redemption was the "virtue" Jesus devised for himself.

            From this it follows that the herd is the chandala whereas the
            herdsman is the priest. The Last Man is the herd member who abolishes
            the herdsman [Hirt]:

            "No shepherd [Hirt], and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone
            is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the
            madhouse."
            [Zarathustra's Prologue, 5.]

            Next I shall go deeper into the priestly hierarchy, as well as into
            the "good and just's" concept of "good". Now it's time to commit
            myself to daily life...
          • sauwelios
            the herd is the chandala whereas the herdsman is the priest. It seems to me that Nietzsche contradicts himself on the chandala and the herd. On some
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              "the herd is the chandala whereas the herdsman is the priest."

              It seems to me that Nietzsche contradicts himself on the chandala and
              the herd. On some occasions he explicitly distinguishes the chandala
              from the fourth caste; on others, he seems to equate the two. But
              perhaps... Yes, I think I have an idea.

              In the case of the Jews, the order of castes, according to Nietzsche
              at least, was at one time as follows:

              Priests
              Warriors
              Peasants
              Chandalas

              The Chandalas don't really form a caste, though: they are the
              drop-outs from all castes. But anyway, this order is different from
              the order of rank found in Manu;

              Priests
              Warriors
              Peasants
              Servants
              Chandalas

              The servant or Sudra caste consisted of the indigenous people of
              India, the conquered; whereas the highest three castes consisted of
              the invaders, the conquerors. In the Jewish case, there was no
              conquered people. Now we should look at that quote in a broader context:

              "The Jews tried to prevail [as a people] after they had lost two of
              their castes, that of the warrior and that of the peasant; in this
              sense they are the "castrated": they have the priests - and then
              immediately the chandala..."
              [The Will to Power, section 184.]

              This is how that section begins. So according to Nietzsche, the second
              and third caste were lost (with the Jewish defeat by the hands of the
              Babylonians). Thus only the priest and the chandala were left. So in
              the case of the then-Jews, the priests *were* the herdsmen and the
              chandalas *were* the herd. In India, on the other hand, the peasants
              were the herd, the warriors were the dogs, and the priests were the
              herdsmen. The peasants were the lifestock; and the Sudras were the
              servants who served all three (cleaned the stables, made the food,
              etc.). Which is not to say that the Sudras were to the peasants and
              warriors as humans are to animals; rather, the castes were *all*
              treated as animals: they were all *bred*, each for their own
              particular function. The chandalas were those who were *not bred*;
              indeed, who were bred to be *misbreeds*: to serve as a warning for all
              (other) castes.






              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > I have to make a clarification. In the speech Of Manly Prudence, why
              > could not Zarathustra, by the "highest and best ones" mean the
              > *actually* highest and best ones? And that the Overman does not yet
              > exist (for if he did, *he* would of course be the highest and best
              > one)? Why should "highest" and "best" be put within quotation marks?
              > In order to answer this, it is necessary to quote that passage again,
              > this time in a slightly larger context:
              >
              > "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!
              > Ah, I became tired of those highest and best ones: from their "height"
              > did I long to be up, out, and away to the Superman!
              > A horror came over me when I saw those best ones naked: then there
              > grew for me the pinions to soar away into distant futures.
              > Into more distant futures, into more southern souths than ever artist
              > dreamed of: thither, where gods are ashamed of all clothes!
              > But disguised do I want to see you, ye neighbours and fellowmen, and
              > well-attired and vain and estimable, as "the good and just;"And
              > disguised will I myself sit amongst you - that I may mistake you and
              > myself: for that is my last manly prudence.
              > Thus spake Zarathustra."
              >
              > Here we see that these "best ones" are the good and just - which
              > Zarathustra eventually does place between quotation marks. They are
              > only the so-*called* "good and just" - they call *themselves* "good
              > and just!"
              >
              > "O my brethren! With whom lieth the greatest danger to the whole human
              > future? Is it not with the good and just? —
              > As those who say and feel in their hearts: "We already know what is
              > good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek
              thereafter!
              > And whatever harm the wicked may do, the harm of the good is the
              > harmfulest harm!
              > And whatever harm the world-maligners may do, the harm of the good is
              > the harmfulest harm!
              > O my brethren, into the hearts of the good and just looked some one
              > once on a time, who said: "They are the Pharisees." But people did not
              > understand him.
              > The good and just themselves were not free to understand him; their
              > spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience. The stupidity of the
              > good is unfathomably wise [*klug*, "clever, cunning". This is a
              > variation on something he said earlier, namely "The stupidity of the
              > good is unfathomable"].
              > It is the truth, however, that the good *must* be Pharisees — they
              > have no choice!
              > The good *must* crucify him who deviseth his own virtue! *That* is the
              > truth!
              > The second one, however, who discovered their country — the country,
              > heart and soil of the good and just, — it was he who asked: "Whom do
              > they hate most?"
              > The *creator*, hate they most, him who breaketh the tables and old
              > values, the breaker, — him they call the law-breaker [*Verbrecher*,
              > "criminal"].
              > For the good — they *cannot* create; they are always the beginning of
              > the end: —
              > They crucify him who writeth new values on new tables, they sacrifice
              > unto *themselves* the future — they crucify the whole human future!
              > The good — they have always been the beginning of the end."
              > [TSZ 3, Of Old and New Tables, 26.]
              >
              > From this it follows that these so-called "good and just" are in
              > nowise the *actual* good and just.
              >
              > The one who asked "Whom do they hate most?" was Zarathustra himself:
              >
              > "I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to
              > follow themselves — and to the place where I will.
              > A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to
              > speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd's herdsman
              > and hound!
              > To allure many from the herd — for that purpose have I come. The
              > people and the herd must be angry with me: a robber shall Zarathustra
              > be called by the herdsmen.
              > Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen,
              > I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.
              > Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up
              > their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker: — he, however, is
              > the creator.
              > Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who
              > breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker: —
              > he, however, is the creator.
              > Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses — and not herds or
              > believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh — those who
              > grave new values on new tables.
              > Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is
              > ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so
              > he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.
              > Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their
              > sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and
              > evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.
              > Fellow-creators, Zarathustra seeketh; fellow-reapers and
              > fellow-rejoicers, Zarathustra seeketh: what hath he to do with herds
              > and herdsmen and corpses!"
              > [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]
              >
              > The one who said "They are the Pharisees", the first one who
              > discovered their land, was of course Jesus:
              >
              > "[The Jews] created an important new posture: the priest at the head
              > of the chandala - against the *noble orders*...
              > Christianity [that is, Jesus' teaching and way of life] drew the
              > ultimate conclusion of this movement: even in the Jewish priesthood it
              > still sensed caste, the privileged, the noble - it *abolished the
              > priest*...
              > Christ is the chandala who repudiates the priest... The chandala who
              > redeems himself..."
              > [The Will to Power, trans. Kaufmann, with my amendations (following
              > the German text).]
              >
              > This self-redemption was the "virtue" Jesus devised for himself.
              >
              > From this it follows that the herd is the chandala whereas the
              > herdsman is the priest. The Last Man is the herd member who abolishes
              > the herdsman [Hirt]:
              >
              > "No shepherd [Hirt], and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone
              > is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the
              > madhouse."
              > [Zarathustra's Prologue, 5.]
              >
              > Next I shall go deeper into the priestly hierarchy, as well as into
              > the "good and just's" concept of "good". Now it's time to commit
              > myself to daily life...
              >
            • sauwelios
              ... In order to do this, it is necessary to the case of the Jews: for, as Nietzsche says; The Jews — a people born into slavery as Tacitus and the whole
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                > Next I shall go deeper into the priestly hierarchy, as well as into
                > the "good and just's" concept of "good".
                >

                In order to do this, it is necessary to the case of the Jews: for, as
                Nietzsche says;

                "The Jews — a people "born into slavery" as Tacitus and the whole
                ancient world says, "the chosen people" as they themselves say and
                believe — the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks
                to which life on earth has for a couple of millennia acquired a new
                and dangerous fascination—their prophets fused "rich," "godless,"
                "evil," "violent," "sensual" into one and were the first to coin the
                word "world" as a term of infamy. It is in this inversion of values
                (with which is involved the employment of the word for "poor" as a
                synonym of "holy" and "friend") that the significance of the Jewish
                people resides: with them there begins the *slave revolt in morals*."
                [Beyond Good and Evil, section 195, entire.]

                The concept "good", according to Nietzsche, originated with the
                nobility, the aristocracy:

                "The noble man conceives the basic concept "good" in advance and
                spontaneously out of himself and only then creates for himself an idea
                of "bad"."
                [Genealogy of Morals, First Treatise, section 11, paraphrase.]

                That is, those who felt good, who felt great, strong, mighty,
                conceived the concept "good"; and only by comparison with those they
                encountered who did evidently *not* feel good, did they conceive the
                counter-concept "bad". Good and bad are relative values, like strong
                and weak, great and small, warm and cold, etc. The Jews, however,
                recoined "good" and "bad" as "evil" and "good", respectively.

                According to Nietzsche and Harry Neumann, the Jews were originally
                polytheistic, like all ancient peoples. At some time, however, they
                became henotheistic (from the Greek *heis*, genetive case *henos*,
                "one") - which is not the same as monotheistic. Henotheism means one
                worships only one god, but still believes in the existence of other
                gods (the gods of other peoples). The one god of Jewish henotheism
                was, among other things, their war god. As their war god, he was
                responsible for victory in war. That is, if the Jews were victorious
                in battle, it was thanks to the efforts of their god; but if the Jews
                were defeated in battle, it was *in spite of* the efforts of their god
                - that is, his best wasn't good enough; he wasn't powerful enough.
                With their defeat, then, his god proved to not be worthy of worship
                anymore.

                When the kingdom of Judea was finally defeated, by the Babylonians,
                the Jews should, as Nietzsche says, "have let go" of their god (The
                Antichrist(ian), section 25). This they did not do. They held on to
                him. But to hold on to him, to keep conceiving of him as worthy of
                worship, they had to interpret their defeat, not as in *spite* of
                their god's efforts, but as *due* to their gods efforts. Why would the
                Jewish god will the defeat of his chosen people? Because they had
                failed to satisfy him.

                "The concept of God becomes a tool in the hands of priestly agitators,
                who now interpret all happiness as a reward, all unhappiness as
                punishment for disobeying God, as "sin": that most mendacious device
                of interpretation, the alleged "moral world order," with which the
                natural concepts of "cause" and "effect" are turned upside down once
                and for all. When, through reward and punishment, one has done away
                with natural causality, an *anti-natural* causality is required: now
                everything else that is unnatural follows. A god who *demands* — in
                place of a god who helps, who devises means, who is at bottom the word
                for every happy inspiration of courage and self-confidence...
                *Morality* — no longer the expression of the conditions for the life
                and growth of a people, no longer its most basic instinct of life, but
                become abstract, become the antithesis of life—morality as the
                systematic degradation of the imagination, as the "evil eye" for all
                things. *What* is Jewish, *what* is Christian, morality? Chance done
                out of its innocence; misfortune besmirched with the concept of "sin";
                well-being as a danger, a "temptation"; physiological indisposition
                poisoned with the worm of conscience..."
                [AC 25.]

                In order to hold on to their god, the Jews had to repudiate all other
                gods, and interpret the course of all things to be the will of God -
                their military defeat in particular. This is when the Jewish
                henotheism changes into monotheism. It is also when their attitude
                towards their old warrior nobility (the House of King David) changes -
                for the worse. The House of King David was destroyed: the Jews had no
                nobility, no warrior caste anymore.

                "The main work of the warriors also was the main work of their gods:
                destruction of enemies. Only with defeat did peaceful priests seem
                better than the warriors celebrated by the old warrior piety. For the
                omnipotent god valued humility and meekness [the conditions of being
                oppressed] over manly pride [the condition of being in power]. The
                priests who interpreted that deity's will naturally were preferred to
                those now defeated warriors [as well as to the warriors of the
                oppressor!]."
                [Harry Neumann, Liberalism, page 182.]

                Now the priests take the role of leaders that the nobility had
                formerly had. And they interpreted the time when the nobility ruled
                Israel as a time of *sin*:

                "The concept of God falsified, the concept of morality falsified: the
                Jewish priesthood did not stop there. The whole of the *history* of
                Israel could not be used: away with it! [...] [I]n the hands of the
                Jewish priests, the *great* age in the history of Israel became an age
                of decay; the Exile, the long misfortune, was transformed into an
                eternal *punishment* for the great age — an age in which the priest
                was still a nobody..."
                [AC 26.]

                "Because they [the Jews] knew the warrior only as their master [their
                oppressor, not their leader], they brought into their religion enmity
                toward the noble, toward the exalted and proud, toward power, toward
                the ruling orders -: they are pessimists from indignation..."
                [The Will to Power, section 184.]

                And the "noble", the "exalted and proud", are precisely the ones from
                whom the original concept "good" originated. Originally, "good"
                *meant* noble, exalted and proud, powerful, etc. And what was "bad"
                was to be *oppressed*, to *not* be noble, exalted, powerful and proud.
                These values were revalued by the Jews, however:

                "The deity of décadence, gelded in his most virile virtues and
                instincts, becomes of necessity the god of the physiologically
                retrograde, of the weak. Of course, they do not *call* themselves the
                weak; they call themselves "the good"..."
                [AC 17.]

                "All that has been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful,"
                "the masters," "the rulers," fades into nothing compared with what the
                *Jews* have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in
                opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with
                nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that
                is to say, an act of the *most spiritual revenge*. For this alone was
                appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply
                repressed [Zurückgetretensten] priestly vengefulness. It was the Jews
                who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic
                value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved
                of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth
                of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying "the
                wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the
                good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are
                blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone—and you, the powerful
                and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the
                insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all
                eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned!"... One knows *who*
                inherited this Jewish revaluation..."
                [Genealogy 1, 7.]
              • sauwelios
                In order to do this, it is necessary to the case of the Jews . To *study* the case of the Jews. With their defeat, then, his god proved to not be worthy of
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  "In order to do this, it is necessary to the case of the Jews".

                  To *study* the case of the Jews.


                  "With their defeat, then, his god proved to not be worthy of worship
                  anymore."

                  *This* god proved etc.


                  "*due* to their gods efforts."

                  To their *god's* efforts.


                  Also, Neumann calls the God of Jewish monotheism "the omnipotent god".
                  This is because a One God must be omnipotent; whereas one god among
                  many may be powerful, but not omnipotent (unless the other gods are
                  thought of as another kind of beings, for instance, "angels" -
                  messengers or media of the will of the One God).
                • sauwelios
                  Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief. [Zarathustra s
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jan 4, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just.
                    Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the
                    orthodox belief."
                    [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]

                    Though Nietzsche makes clear that the herdsman or shepherd belongs to
                    the herd, "even if it be as the herd's supreme requirement" (The Will
                    to Power, section 879), there is a subtle difference. When the herd
                    seeks to abolish even the most subtle of differences, it longs for
                    "one herd and no shepherd"; and though for a Nietzschean - that is,
                    one who, contrary to human herd animals, believes in order of rank and
                    holds *dear* to order of rank, *desires* order of rank - the herd is
                    located at the base of the culture pyramid, there are those whom he
                    ranks even lower, *below* the basis of the pyramid, as outcasts from
                    and drop-outs of the culture pyramid. Thus, in a note titled "The
                    inversion of the order of rank", Nietzsche says:

                    "The pious counterfeiters, the priests, among us become chandalas -
                    they replace the charlatans, quacks, counterfeiters, and wizards; we
                    consider them corrupters of the will, great slanderers of life on
                    which they wish to revenge themselves, *rebels* against the
                    [physiologically] underprivileged. We have turned the caste of
                    servants, the Sudras, into our middle class, our "Volk" ["people"],
                    those who make political decisions."
                    [The Will to Power, section 116.]

                    And the manuscript of this note continues: "business and land owners -
                    the military - the scholarly classes." It may be tempting to identify
                    these with the Vaishyas (merchants and peasants), the Kshatriyas
                    (warriors), and the Brahmins (scholars of Scripture, priests); but a
                    book written in the same period as this note favours a different reading:

                    "A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its
                    first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated
                    mediocrity. Handicraft, trade, agriculture, *science* [*Wissenschaft*,
                    which may also mean "scholarship"], the greatest part of art, the
                    whole quintessence of professional activity, to sum it up, is
                    compatible only with a mediocre amount of ability and ambition; that
                    sort of thing would be out of place among exceptions; the instinct
                    here required would contradict both aristocratism and anarchism."
                    [The Antichrist(ian), section 57.]

                    The reading of the above note that this passage favours is of the list
                    found in the manuscript as a list of *examples* - examples of what
                    kind of people all belong to "the people" (the Sudras) - and indeed,
                    not the most obvious of examples (which would be the reason why
                    Nietzsche included the list in the first place).

                    As for who would occupy the *highest* place in this culture pyramid,
                    the note continues:

                    "On the other hand, the chandala of former times is at the top:
                    foremost, those who *blaspheme God, the immoralists*, the nomads of
                    every type, the artists, Jews, musicians - at bottom, all disreputable
                    classes of men - [the paragraph ends here.]"

                    And as Nietzsche does not mention the warrior caste in this note, we
                    may infer that the position of the Kshatriya caste in Nietzsche's new
                    order remains unchanged. Thus the new order is:

                    Chandalas
                    Warriors
                    Sudras
                    Priests.

                    And not only *priests* make up the lowest position, the "out-caste" of
                    society:

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

                    Here we see to what extent Nietzsche was an Antichristian!

                    We also see that the Vaishya caste is merged into the Sudra caste in
                    Nietzsche's caste system. The only difference is that the Sudra caste
                    would be the lower middle class, whereas the Vaishya caste would be
                    the upper middle class (the bourgeoisie!). And it is indeed to the
                    upper middle class that the classes mentioned listed in the manuscript
                    - business and land owners, the military, and the scholarly classes -
                    belong. So ultimately, Nietzsche's caste system looks thus:

                    Chandalas (of former times)
                    Warriors
                    Vaishyas
                    Sudras
                    Priests (and the like).

                    Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a soldier, even
                    an officer, is not yet a warrior). We might think of the relationship
                    between the SS and the Army in Nazi Germany.
                  • sauwelios
                    [I]t is indeed to the upper middle class that the classes mentioned listed in the manuscript - business and land owners, the military, and the scholarly
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jan 5, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "[I]t is indeed to the upper middle class that the classes mentioned
                      listed in the manuscript - business and land owners, the military, and
                      the scholarly classes - belong."

                      This is not completely right. The "common soldiewy", to speak with
                      Pilate from The Life of Brian, belongs to the Sudras; it is only the
                      (higher) officers that belong to the Vaishyas.


                      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > "Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just.
                      > Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the
                      > orthodox belief."
                      > [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]
                      >
                      > Though Nietzsche makes clear that the herdsman or shepherd belongs to
                      > the herd, "even if it be as the herd's supreme requirement" (The Will
                      > to Power, section 879), there is a subtle difference. When the herd
                      > seeks to abolish even the most subtle of differences, it longs for
                      > "one herd and no shepherd"; and though for a Nietzschean - that is,
                      > one who, contrary to human herd animals, believes in order of rank and
                      > holds *dear* to order of rank, *desires* order of rank - the herd is
                      > located at the base of the culture pyramid, there are those whom he
                      > ranks even lower, *below* the basis of the pyramid, as outcasts from
                      > and drop-outs of the culture pyramid. Thus, in a note titled "The
                      > inversion of the order of rank", Nietzsche says:
                      >
                      > "The pious counterfeiters, the priests, among us become chandalas -
                      > they replace the charlatans, quacks, counterfeiters, and wizards; we
                      > consider them corrupters of the will, great slanderers of life on
                      > which they wish to revenge themselves, *rebels* against the
                      > [physiologically] underprivileged. We have turned the caste of
                      > servants, the Sudras, into our middle class, our "Volk" ["people"],
                      > those who make political decisions."
                      > [The Will to Power, section 116.]
                      >
                      > And the manuscript of this note continues: "business and land owners -
                      > the military - the scholarly classes." It may be tempting to identify
                      > these with the Vaishyas (merchants and peasants), the Kshatriyas
                      > (warriors), and the Brahmins (scholars of Scripture, priests); but a
                      > book written in the same period as this note favours a different
                      reading:
                      >
                      > "A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its
                      > first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated
                      > mediocrity. Handicraft, trade, agriculture, *science* [*Wissenschaft*,
                      > which may also mean "scholarship"], the greatest part of art, the
                      > whole quintessence of professional activity, to sum it up, is
                      > compatible only with a mediocre amount of ability and ambition; that
                      > sort of thing would be out of place among exceptions; the instinct
                      > here required would contradict both aristocratism and anarchism."
                      > [The Antichrist(ian), section 57.]
                      >
                      > The reading of the above note that this passage favours is of the list
                      > found in the manuscript as a list of *examples* - examples of what
                      > kind of people all belong to "the people" (the Sudras) - and indeed,
                      > not the most obvious of examples (which would be the reason why
                      > Nietzsche included the list in the first place).
                      >
                      > As for who would occupy the *highest* place in this culture pyramid,
                      > the note continues:
                      >
                      > "On the other hand, the chandala of former times is at the top:
                      > foremost, those who *blaspheme God, the immoralists*, the nomads of
                      > every type, the artists, Jews, musicians - at bottom, all disreputable
                      > classes of men - [the paragraph ends here.]"
                      >
                      > And as Nietzsche does not mention the warrior caste in this note, we
                      > may infer that the position of the Kshatriya caste in Nietzsche's new
                      > order remains unchanged. Thus the new order is:
                      >
                      > Chandalas
                      > Warriors
                      > Sudras
                      > Priests.
                      >
                      > And not only *priests* make up the lowest position, the "out-caste" of
                      > society:
                      >
                      > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests*,
                      > *teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
                      > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
                      > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts -
                      > the whole sphere in which the concept "God" is imagined as a
                      *savior*..."
                      > [The Will to Power, ibid.]
                      >
                      > Here we see to what extent Nietzsche was an Antichristian!
                      >
                      > We also see that the Vaishya caste is merged into the Sudra caste in
                      > Nietzsche's caste system. The only difference is that the Sudra caste
                      > would be the lower middle class, whereas the Vaishya caste would be
                      > the upper middle class (the bourgeoisie!). And it is indeed to the
                      > upper middle class that the classes mentioned listed in the manuscript
                      > - business and land owners, the military, and the scholarly classes -
                      > belong. So ultimately, Nietzsche's caste system looks thus:
                      >
                      > Chandalas (of former times)
                      > Warriors
                      > Vaishyas
                      > Sudras
                      > Priests (and the like).
                      >
                      > Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a soldier, even
                      > an officer, is not yet a warrior). We might think of the relationship
                      > between the SS and the Army in Nazi Germany.
                      >
                    • sauwelios
                      So Nietzsche makes specialization the criterion of mediocrity and slavery : his lowest caste would include professional and business men as well as farmers
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jan 6, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "So Nietzsche makes specialization the criterion of mediocrity and
                        "slavery": his lowest caste would include professional and business
                        men as well as farmers and artisans. In short, nearly the whole of
                        modern industrial society would become the foundation of the "culture
                        pyramid" - that is why in the long run he welcomes the development of
                        this society."
                        [George Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, page 372.]

                        This conclusion, drawn by a most astute Nietzsche reader, gives a clue
                        as to the difference in Nietzsche's caste system between Vaisyas and
                        Sudras. For Morgan takes "the lowest caste" to be essentially "the
                        whole of modern industrial society". But modern industrial society is
                        conventionally divided in three sectors: primary, secondary, and
                        tertiary industry:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector

                        Even as the Vaishya caste consists of two distinct professions, that
                        of the peasant and that of the merchant, so Nietzsche's third caste
                        consists of both the primary and the secondary sectors of industry.
                        His fourth caste, then, consists of the whole tertiary sector. Thus
                        the modern Vaishya caste is occupied with extraction and
                        manufacturing, whereas the modern Sudra caste is occupied with
                        service. Yet of course we should not think of mine or factory workers
                        as Vaishyas; they are Sudras, servants giving paid service to the
                        actual Vaishyas, such as mine and factory *owners*.



                        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > "[I]t is indeed to the upper middle class that the classes mentioned
                        > listed in the manuscript - business and land owners, the military, and
                        > the scholarly classes - belong."
                        >
                        > This is not completely right. The "common soldiewy", to speak with
                        > Pilate from The Life of Brian, belongs to the Sudras; it is only the
                        > (higher) officers that belong to the Vaishyas.
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > "Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just.
                        > > Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the
                        > > orthodox belief."
                        > > [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]
                        > >
                        > > Though Nietzsche makes clear that the herdsman or shepherd belongs to
                        > > the herd, "even if it be as the herd's supreme requirement" (The Will
                        > > to Power, section 879), there is a subtle difference. When the herd
                        > > seeks to abolish even the most subtle of differences, it longs for
                        > > "one herd and no shepherd"; and though for a Nietzschean - that is,
                        > > one who, contrary to human herd animals, believes in order of rank and
                        > > holds *dear* to order of rank, *desires* order of rank - the herd is
                        > > located at the base of the culture pyramid, there are those whom he
                        > > ranks even lower, *below* the basis of the pyramid, as outcasts from
                        > > and drop-outs of the culture pyramid. Thus, in a note titled "The
                        > > inversion of the order of rank", Nietzsche says:
                        > >
                        > > "The pious counterfeiters, the priests, among us become chandalas -
                        > > they replace the charlatans, quacks, counterfeiters, and wizards; we
                        > > consider them corrupters of the will, great slanderers of life on
                        > > which they wish to revenge themselves, *rebels* against the
                        > > [physiologically] underprivileged. We have turned the caste of
                        > > servants, the Sudras, into our middle class, our "Volk" ["people"],
                        > > those who make political decisions."
                        > > [The Will to Power, section 116.]
                        > >
                        > > And the manuscript of this note continues: "business and land owners -
                        > > the military - the scholarly classes." It may be tempting to identify
                        > > these with the Vaishyas (merchants and peasants), the Kshatriyas
                        > > (warriors), and the Brahmins (scholars of Scripture, priests); but a
                        > > book written in the same period as this note favours a different
                        > reading:
                        > >
                        > > "A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its
                        > > first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated
                        > > mediocrity. Handicraft, trade, agriculture, *science* [*Wissenschaft*,
                        > > which may also mean "scholarship"], the greatest part of art, the
                        > > whole quintessence of professional activity, to sum it up, is
                        > > compatible only with a mediocre amount of ability and ambition; that
                        > > sort of thing would be out of place among exceptions; the instinct
                        > > here required would contradict both aristocratism and anarchism."
                        > > [The Antichrist(ian), section 57.]
                        > >
                        > > The reading of the above note that this passage favours is of the list
                        > > found in the manuscript as a list of *examples* - examples of what
                        > > kind of people all belong to "the people" (the Sudras) - and indeed,
                        > > not the most obvious of examples (which would be the reason why
                        > > Nietzsche included the list in the first place).
                        > >
                        > > As for who would occupy the *highest* place in this culture pyramid,
                        > > the note continues:
                        > >
                        > > "On the other hand, the chandala of former times is at the top:
                        > > foremost, those who *blaspheme God, the immoralists*, the nomads of
                        > > every type, the artists, Jews, musicians - at bottom, all disreputable
                        > > classes of men - [the paragraph ends here.]"
                        > >
                        > > And as Nietzsche does not mention the warrior caste in this note, we
                        > > may infer that the position of the Kshatriya caste in Nietzsche's new
                        > > order remains unchanged. Thus the new order is:
                        > >
                        > > Chandalas
                        > > Warriors
                        > > Sudras
                        > > Priests.
                        > >
                        > > And not only *priests* make up the lowest position, the "out-caste" of
                        > > society:
                        > >
                        > > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests*,
                        > > *teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
                        > > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
                        > > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts -
                        > > the whole sphere in which the concept "God" is imagined as a
                        > *savior*..."
                        > > [The Will to Power, ibid.]
                        > >
                        > > Here we see to what extent Nietzsche was an Antichristian!
                        > >
                        > > We also see that the Vaishya caste is merged into the Sudra caste in
                        > > Nietzsche's caste system. The only difference is that the Sudra caste
                        > > would be the lower middle class, whereas the Vaishya caste would be
                        > > the upper middle class (the bourgeoisie!). And it is indeed to the
                        > > upper middle class that the classes mentioned listed in the manuscript
                        > > - business and land owners, the military, and the scholarly classes -
                        > > belong. So ultimately, Nietzsche's caste system looks thus:
                        > >
                        > > Chandalas (of former times)
                        > > Warriors
                        > > Vaishyas
                        > > Sudras
                        > > Priests (and the like).
                        > >
                        > > Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a soldier, even
                        > > an officer, is not yet a warrior). We might think of the relationship
                        > > between the SS and the Army in Nazi Germany.
                        > >
                        >
                      • sauwelios
                        Even as the Vaishya caste consists of two distinct professions, that of the peasant and that of the merchant, so Nietzsche s third caste consists of both the
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jan 7, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "Even as the Vaishya caste consists of two distinct professions, that
                          of the peasant and that of the merchant, so Nietzsche's third caste
                          consists of both the primary and the secondary sectors of industry.
                          His fourth caste, then, consists of the whole tertiary sector."

                          On further thought, though, this is not right. For the owner(s) of a
                          service company are also Vaishyas rather than Sudras.

                          Also, the modern situation is too complicated to rank every individual
                          within one caste only. Even I am a Sudra as far as "daily life" is
                          concerned (but then my "daily life" thankfully only takes up a
                          minority of my time). Professionally, I am a Sudra; but privately, I
                          am a Chandala of former times: I rank with the immoralists.

                          This means that part of me is a servant, a slave in the service of the
                          other, masterly part of me.




                          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > "So Nietzsche makes specialization the criterion of mediocrity and
                          > "slavery": his lowest caste would include professional and business
                          > men as well as farmers and artisans. In short, nearly the whole of
                          > modern industrial society would become the foundation of the "culture
                          > pyramid" - that is why in the long run he welcomes the development of
                          > this society."
                          > [George Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, page 372.]
                          >
                          > This conclusion, drawn by a most astute Nietzsche reader, gives a clue
                          > as to the difference in Nietzsche's caste system between Vaisyas and
                          > Sudras. For Morgan takes "the lowest caste" to be essentially "the
                          > whole of modern industrial society". But modern industrial society is
                          > conventionally divided in three sectors: primary, secondary, and
                          > tertiary industry:
                          >
                          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector
                          >
                          > Even as the Vaishya caste consists of two distinct professions, that
                          > of the peasant and that of the merchant, so Nietzsche's third caste
                          > consists of both the primary and the secondary sectors of industry.
                          > His fourth caste, then, consists of the whole tertiary sector. Thus
                          > the modern Vaishya caste is occupied with extraction and
                          > manufacturing, whereas the modern Sudra caste is occupied with
                          > service. Yet of course we should not think of mine or factory workers
                          > as Vaishyas; they are Sudras, servants giving paid service to the
                          > actual Vaishyas, such as mine and factory *owners*.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > "[I]t is indeed to the upper middle class that the classes mentioned
                          > > listed in the manuscript - business and land owners, the military, and
                          > > the scholarly classes - belong."
                          > >
                          > > This is not completely right. The "common soldiewy", to speak with
                          > > Pilate from The Life of Brian, belongs to the Sudras; it is only the
                          > > (higher) officers that belong to the Vaishyas.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
                          > > wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > "Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just.
                          > > > Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the
                          > > > orthodox belief."
                          > > > [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]
                          > > >
                          > > > Though Nietzsche makes clear that the herdsman or shepherd
                          belongs to
                          > > > the herd, "even if it be as the herd's supreme requirement" (The
                          Will
                          > > > to Power, section 879), there is a subtle difference. When the herd
                          > > > seeks to abolish even the most subtle of differences, it longs for
                          > > > "one herd and no shepherd"; and though for a Nietzschean - that is,
                          > > > one who, contrary to human herd animals, believes in order of
                          rank and
                          > > > holds *dear* to order of rank, *desires* order of rank - the herd is
                          > > > located at the base of the culture pyramid, there are those whom he
                          > > > ranks even lower, *below* the basis of the pyramid, as outcasts from
                          > > > and drop-outs of the culture pyramid. Thus, in a note titled "The
                          > > > inversion of the order of rank", Nietzsche says:
                          > > >
                          > > > "The pious counterfeiters, the priests, among us become chandalas -
                          > > > they replace the charlatans, quacks, counterfeiters, and wizards; we
                          > > > consider them corrupters of the will, great slanderers of life on
                          > > > which they wish to revenge themselves, *rebels* against the
                          > > > [physiologically] underprivileged. We have turned the caste of
                          > > > servants, the Sudras, into our middle class, our "Volk" ["people"],
                          > > > those who make political decisions."
                          > > > [The Will to Power, section 116.]
                          > > >
                          > > > And the manuscript of this note continues: "business and land
                          owners -
                          > > > the military - the scholarly classes." It may be tempting to
                          identify
                          > > > these with the Vaishyas (merchants and peasants), the Kshatriyas
                          > > > (warriors), and the Brahmins (scholars of Scripture, priests); but a
                          > > > book written in the same period as this note favours a different
                          > > reading:
                          > > >
                          > > > "A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its
                          > > > first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated
                          > > > mediocrity. Handicraft, trade, agriculture, *science*
                          [*Wissenschaft*,
                          > > > which may also mean "scholarship"], the greatest part of art, the
                          > > > whole quintessence of professional activity, to sum it up, is
                          > > > compatible only with a mediocre amount of ability and ambition; that
                          > > > sort of thing would be out of place among exceptions; the instinct
                          > > > here required would contradict both aristocratism and anarchism."
                          > > > [The Antichrist(ian), section 57.]
                          > > >
                          > > > The reading of the above note that this passage favours is of
                          the list
                          > > > found in the manuscript as a list of *examples* - examples of what
                          > > > kind of people all belong to "the people" (the Sudras) - and indeed,
                          > > > not the most obvious of examples (which would be the reason why
                          > > > Nietzsche included the list in the first place).
                          > > >
                          > > > As for who would occupy the *highest* place in this culture pyramid,
                          > > > the note continues:
                          > > >
                          > > > "On the other hand, the chandala of former times is at the top:
                          > > > foremost, those who *blaspheme God, the immoralists*, the nomads of
                          > > > every type, the artists, Jews, musicians - at bottom, all
                          disreputable
                          > > > classes of men - [the paragraph ends here.]"
                          > > >
                          > > > And as Nietzsche does not mention the warrior caste in this note, we
                          > > > may infer that the position of the Kshatriya caste in
                          Nietzsche's new
                          > > > order remains unchanged. Thus the new order is:
                          > > >
                          > > > Chandalas
                          > > > Warriors
                          > > > Sudras
                          > > > Priests.
                          > > >
                          > > > And not only *priests* make up the lowest position, the
                          "out-caste" of
                          > > > society:
                          > > >
                          > > > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests*,
                          > > > *teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
                          > > > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
                          > > > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts -
                          > > > the whole sphere in which the concept "God" is imagined as a
                          > > *savior*..."
                          > > > [The Will to Power, ibid.]
                          > > >
                          > > > Here we see to what extent Nietzsche was an Antichristian!
                          > > >
                          > > > We also see that the Vaishya caste is merged into the Sudra caste in
                          > > > Nietzsche's caste system. The only difference is that the Sudra
                          caste
                          > > > would be the lower middle class, whereas the Vaishya caste would be
                          > > > the upper middle class (the bourgeoisie!). And it is indeed to the
                          > > > upper middle class that the classes mentioned listed in the
                          manuscript
                          > > > - business and land owners, the military, and the scholarly
                          classes -
                          > > > belong. So ultimately, Nietzsche's caste system looks thus:
                          > > >
                          > > > Chandalas (of former times)
                          > > > Warriors
                          > > > Vaishyas
                          > > > Sudras
                          > > > Priests (and the like).
                          > > >
                          > > > Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a
                          soldier, even
                          > > > an officer, is not yet a warrior). We might think of the
                          relationship
                          > > > between the SS and the Army in Nazi Germany.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • sauwelios
                          Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a soldier, even an officer, is not yet a warrior). Thus Nietzsche mentions as the first among a list
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 7, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a soldier,
                            even an officer, is not yet a warrior)."

                            Thus Nietzsche mentions as the first among a list of "the most
                            favorable inhibitions and remedies of modernity" the following:

                            "universal military service with real wars in which the time for
                            joking is past".
                            [The Will to Power, section 126.]

                            The difference between a military man and a warrior is in the root of
                            the latter, the word "war". A military rank order, with generals at
                            the top and common soldiers at the bottom, is a *man-made* order - not
                            a *natural* order of rank. It is in crises like war that the *natural*
                            order of rank between man and man becomes visible:

                            "He who contemplates war and its uniformed possibility, the *soldiers'
                            profession*, with respect to the hitherto [i.e., in the essay in
                            question] described nature of the state, must arrive at the
                            conviction, that through war and in the profession of arms is placed
                            before our eyes an image, or even perhaps the *prototype of the
                            state*. Here we see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an
                            immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military
                            castes, out of which rises, pyramid-shaped, on an exceedingly broad
                            base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society." The unconscious
                            purpose of the whole movement constrains every individual under its
                            yoke, and produces also in heterogeneous natures as it were a chemical
                            transformation of their qualities until they are brought into affinity
                            with that purpose."
                            [Nietzsche, The Greek State (1872).]

                            The soldiers' profession is the uniformed *possibility* of war. And
                            vice versa, the soldiers' profession [Soldatenstand, "soldier class"]
                            *follows* from war: as Nietzsche says, *through* war and *in* the
                            soldiers' profession.

                            Naturally, and before a crisis like war arises, there is one big
                            "chaotic mass". Only a crisis like war causes this mass to decompose
                            and divide into a pyramid-shaped society of castes.

                            The chaotic mass can also be ordered by human design, but then it's
                            not a *natural* order but an artificial order. And even if this order
                            is made in the image of a natural order, it is still only an image:
                            the *actual* natural order might be different.

                            Another crisis which, like war, may also make manifest the natural
                            order of rank, is that crisis which the belief in the eternal
                            recurrence may arouse in certain people. In that context Nietzsche
                            writes about such crises;

                            "It is the value of such a crisis that it purifies, that it pushes
                            together related elements to perish of each other, that it assigns
                            common tasks to men who have opposite ways of thinking - and it also
                            brings to light the weaker and less secure among them and thus
                            promotes an order or rank according to strength, from the point of
                            view of health: those who command are recognized as those who command,
                            those who obey as those who obey. Of course, outside every existing
                            social order."
                            [The Will to Power, section 55 (1887).]

                            This is what the thought of the eternal recurrence is a means to. The
                            end is the promotion of such an order of rank (outside every existing
                            social order), which is itself in turn a means. Thus in The Greek
                            State Nietzsche continues:

                            "In the highest castes one perceives already a little more of what in
                            this internal process is involved at the bottom, namely the creation
                            of the *military genius*".

                            "Genius" is, in my reading, the word Nietzsche uses in The Greek State
                            for what he would later call the Overman. The top of the pyramid that
                            is the "martial society" consists of the military genius. With this
                            top, that pyramid reaches the clouds - the heavens of the genius, at
                            the top of the pyramid that is the State:

                            "The proper aim of the state [is] the Olympian existence and
                            ever-renewed procreation and preparation of the genius".
                            [ibid.]

                            Thus the Sudra caste is the lowest caste. Above that is the Vaishya
                            caste. On top of that stands the Kshatriya caste, the warrior caste,
                            at the top of which is the highest warrior, the military genius, "that
                            conqueror with the iron hand" [again The Greek State]. With this top,
                            the warrior caste penetrates the highest caste, the caste of geniuses.

                            Ah, but this is a merely theoretical situation. For the warrior caste
                            as I just mentioned it is the *artificial* martial order; not the
                            natural one. It is a miniature rank order *within* the existing social
                            order. No, there is another explanation for Nietzsche's omission of
                            the warrior and Vaishya castes in his inversed order of rank.

                            As The Will to Power, section 126, tells us, Nietzsche wanted
                            universal military service with real wars. This means that the whole
                            State is a military state, and that it is usually at war. As for the
                            whole state being a military state:

                            "*From the future of the worker.* - Workers should learn to feel like
                            *soldiers*. An honorarium, a salary, but no pay!
                            No relation between payment and *performance*! But rather so place the
                            individual, *according to his kind*, that he can *do* the *highest*
                            that lies in his reach."
                            [The Will to Power, section 763, entire, trans. Morgan.]

                            This sounds rather socialistic, does it not? So perhaps Nietzsche also
                            thought rather socialistically about the Vaishyas: all property shall
                            be owned by the State, therefore there *shall* be no Vaishyas!





                            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > "Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just.
                            > Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the
                            > orthodox belief."
                            > [Zarathustra's Prologue, 9.]
                            >
                            > Though Nietzsche makes clear that the herdsman or shepherd belongs to
                            > the herd, "even if it be as the herd's supreme requirement" (The Will
                            > to Power, section 879), there is a subtle difference. When the herd
                            > seeks to abolish even the most subtle of differences, it longs for
                            > "one herd and no shepherd"; and though for a Nietzschean - that is,
                            > one who, contrary to human herd animals, believes in order of rank and
                            > holds *dear* to order of rank, *desires* order of rank - the herd is
                            > located at the base of the culture pyramid, there are those whom he
                            > ranks even lower, *below* the basis of the pyramid, as outcasts from
                            > and drop-outs of the culture pyramid. Thus, in a note titled "The
                            > inversion of the order of rank", Nietzsche says:
                            >
                            > "The pious counterfeiters, the priests, among us become chandalas -
                            > they replace the charlatans, quacks, counterfeiters, and wizards; we
                            > consider them corrupters of the will, great slanderers of life on
                            > which they wish to revenge themselves, *rebels* against the
                            > [physiologically] underprivileged. We have turned the caste of
                            > servants, the Sudras, into our middle class, our "Volk" ["people"],
                            > those who make political decisions."
                            > [The Will to Power, section 116.]
                            >
                            > And the manuscript of this note continues: "business and land owners -
                            > the military - the scholarly classes." It may be tempting to identify
                            > these with the Vaishyas (merchants and peasants), the Kshatriyas
                            > (warriors), and the Brahmins (scholars of Scripture, priests); but a
                            > book written in the same period as this note favours a different
                            reading:
                            >
                            > "A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its
                            > first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated
                            > mediocrity. Handicraft, trade, agriculture, *science* [*Wissenschaft*,
                            > which may also mean "scholarship"], the greatest part of art, the
                            > whole quintessence of professional activity, to sum it up, is
                            > compatible only with a mediocre amount of ability and ambition; that
                            > sort of thing would be out of place among exceptions; the instinct
                            > here required would contradict both aristocratism and anarchism."
                            > [The Antichrist(ian), section 57.]
                            >
                            > The reading of the above note that this passage favours is of the list
                            > found in the manuscript as a list of *examples* - examples of what
                            > kind of people all belong to "the people" (the Sudras) - and indeed,
                            > not the most obvious of examples (which would be the reason why
                            > Nietzsche included the list in the first place).
                            >
                            > As for who would occupy the *highest* place in this culture pyramid,
                            > the note continues:
                            >
                            > "On the other hand, the chandala of former times is at the top:
                            > foremost, those who *blaspheme God, the immoralists*, the nomads of
                            > every type, the artists, Jews, musicians - at bottom, all disreputable
                            > classes of men - [the paragraph ends here.]"
                            >
                            > And as Nietzsche does not mention the warrior caste in this note, we
                            > may infer that the position of the Kshatriya caste in Nietzsche's new
                            > order remains unchanged. Thus the new order is:
                            >
                            > Chandalas
                            > Warriors
                            > Sudras
                            > Priests.
                            >
                            > And not only *priests* make up the lowest position, the "out-caste" of
                            > society:
                            >
                            > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests*,
                            > *teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
                            > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
                            > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts -
                            > the whole sphere in which the concept "God" is imagined as a
                            *savior*..."
                            > [The Will to Power, ibid.]
                            >
                            > Here we see to what extent Nietzsche was an Antichristian!
                            >
                            > We also see that the Vaishya caste is merged into the Sudra caste in
                            > Nietzsche's caste system. The only difference is that the Sudra caste
                            > would be the lower middle class, whereas the Vaishya caste would be
                            > the upper middle class (the bourgeoisie!). And it is indeed to the
                            > upper middle class that the classes mentioned listed in the manuscript
                            > - business and land owners, the military, and the scholarly classes -
                            > belong. So ultimately, Nietzsche's caste system looks thus:
                            >
                            > Chandalas (of former times)
                            > Warriors
                            > Vaishyas
                            > Sudras
                            > Priests (and the like).
                            >
                            > Note that the warriors are distinct from the military (a soldier, even
                            > an officer, is not yet a warrior). We might think of the relationship
                            > between the SS and the Army in Nazi Germany.
                            >
                          • Sauwelios
                            ... wrote: {snipped} ... AMONG the underprivileged.
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 15, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                              wrote: {snipped}
                              >
                              > *rebels* against the underprivileged.
                              >

                              AMONG the underprivileged.
                            • Sauwelios
                              ... *savior*... ... Age of Attempts [ Versuche , also Experiments ]. I do the great test: who endures the thought of the eternal recurrence?--- Whoever can
                              Message 14 of 20 , Dec 26, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > "We have transferred the concept of the "chandala" to the *priests*,
                                > *teachers of a beyond*, and the *Christian society* that is grown
                                > together with them, as well as all who are of the same origin, the
                                > pessimists, nihilists, romantics of pity, criminals, vice addicts -
                                > the whole sphere in which the concept "God" is imagined as a
                                *savior*..."
                                > [The Will to Power, ibid.]
                                >

                                "Age of Attempts ['Versuche', also "Experiments"].

                                I do the great test: who endures the thought of the eternal
                                recurrence?--- Whoever can be destroyed by the proposition "there is
                                no salvation" shall die off ['aussterben', also "go extinct"]. I want
                                wars in which those who have the courage to face life drive away the
                                others: this question shall dissolve all ties and drive out the
                                world-weary---you shall thrust them out, assail them with every kind
                                of contempt, or lock them up in madhouses, reduce them to despair, etc."

                                [Nachlass Spring 1884 25 [290], entire.]


                                The eternal recurrence is basically an intensification of "the most
                                paralyzing idea":

                                "Duration "in vain," without end or aim, is the most paralyzing idea,
                                particularly when one understands that one is being fooled and yet
                                lacks the power not to be fooled.

                                "Let us think this thought in its most terrible form: existence as it
                                is, without meaning or aim, yet recurring inevitably without any
                                finale of nothingness: *"the eternal recurrence."*
                                This is the most extreme form of nihilism: the nothing (the
                                "meaningless"), eternally!"

                                [WTP 55.]

                                The great restorative? ---The doctrine of the will to power (cf. the
                                rest of WTP 55):

                                "The transformation of the world-denying way of thinking into the
                                opposite ideal [cf. BGE 56] is connected with the realization or
                                divination that the stone, the stupidity or the Nothing to which God
                                is being secrificed, is in its "intelligible character" the will to
                                power (cf. aph. 36)."
                                [Leo Strauss, 'Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's *Beyond Good and Evil*'.]

                                Today is called "Second Christmas Day" where I live, and I'm having a
                                bright Christmas! No snow to be seen, but the sun is shining in a blue
                                sky! Hail Tiu! But hail Wedn, too! For all contraries---Attraction and
                                Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate---are instances of the
                                will to power. The will to power *is* my salvation!

                                "Invulnerable am I only in my heel. Ever livest thou there, and art
                                like thyself, thou most patient one! Ever hast thou burst all shackles
                                of the tomb!
                                In thee still liveth also the unrealisedness of my youth; and as life
                                and youth sittest thou here hopeful on the yellow ruins of graves.
                                Yea, thou art still for me the demolisher of all graves: Hail to thee,
                                my Will! And only where there are graves are there resurrections.
                                Thus sang Zarathustra." [The Grave-Song.]

                                Hail Nietzsche!
                              • pleaseherpleasehim
                                ... I think you and Moody both have interesting posts but sometimes I get the feeling that you need Nietzsche and aren t just interested in him. gruesome
                                Message 15 of 20 , Dec 26, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >
                                  > Hail Nietzsche!
                                  >

                                  I think you and Moody both have interesting posts but sometimes I get the feeling that you
                                  need Nietzsche and aren't just interested in him.

                                  'gruesome seriousness... [is an] awkward and very improper method for winning a woman's
                                  heart'

                                  A master is both proud and prankish and I see very little joyfulness in your wisdom.

                                  T
                                • Sauwelios
                                  ... get the feeling that you ... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=interest Interesting is a word of *contempt* for me these days: it suggests
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Dec 26, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pleaseherpleasehim"
                                    <pleaseherpleasehim@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > > Hail Nietzsche!
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > I think you and Moody both have interesting posts but sometimes I
                                    get the feeling that you
                                    > need Nietzsche and aren't just interested in him.
                                    >

                                    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=interest

                                    "Interesting" is a word of *contempt* for me these days: it suggests
                                    indifference. I certainly am not "just interested" in Nietzsche!

                                    "What good is my reason! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for
                                    his food?"
                                    [Zarathustra's Prologue, 3.]



                                    > 'gruesome seriousness... [is an] awkward and very improper method
                                    for winning a woman's
                                    > heart'
                                    >

                                    Is it important to win a woman's heart?

                                    This quote is from BGE Preface, of course (though it would have been
                                    courteous if you'd have sourced it). The woman in question there is
                                    Truth. But why seek Truth? The scorpion called Christianity has killed
                                    itself with its own stinger, the commandment to truthfulness ("Thou
                                    shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"). Do you think the
                                    stinger can live on without the scorpion? Wasn't it a part of the
                                    scorpion? As Nietzsche says, with the death of the Christian God,
                                    Christian morality has become groundless. The only good reason to be
                                    truthful now (besides persecution) is that it's courageous, and that
                                    it's strong, in turn, to be courageous. But what does truthfulness
                                    mean? It means to see "there is only *one* world, and this is false,
                                    cruel, contradictory, seductive, without meaning... [...] That lies
                                    are necessary in order to live is itself part of the terrifying and
                                    questionable character of existence." (WTP 853.)

                                    "It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend
                                    what Zarathustra *wants*: this type of man that he conceives [the
                                    Overman], conceives reality *as it is*: it is strong enough for it---,
                                    it is not estranged or removed from it, it is *reality itself* and
                                    exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, *only in that
                                    way can man attain greatness*..."
                                    [EH Destiny, 5.]

                                    This means the Overman is himself false, cruel, contradictory,
                                    seductive, without meaning; himself exemplifies the necessity of lies.
                                    He is an *artist*...

                                    "But what has woman to do with the passionate indifference of the true
                                    artist [...]? [...] Art as it is practiced by the artist---do you not
                                    grasp what it is: an attempt to assassinate all pudeurs?..."
                                    [WTP 817; cf. Twilight, Maxims, 16.]


                                    > A master is both proud and prankish and I see very little joyfulness
                                    in your wisdom.
                                    >
                                    > T
                                    >

                                    "I have presented such terrible images to knowledge that any
                                    "Epicurean delight" is out of the question. Only Dionysian joy is
                                    sufficient".
                                    [WTP 1029.]

                                    Perhaps my Dionysian joy is too pathological for you?

                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/46

                                    Heil Nietzsche!
                                  • pleaseherpleasehim
                                    ... No, it just seems like you are more like one of those who are sublime in Zarathustra. I don t hear a thousand grimaces of children, angels, owls, fools,
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Dec 26, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Perhaps my Dionysian joy is too pathological for you?
                                      >

                                      No, it just seems like you are more like one of those who are sublime in Zarathustra. I
                                      don't hear 'a thousand grimaces of children, angels, owls, fools, and butterflies as big as
                                      children' in your tone.

                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > 'gruesome seriousness... [is an] awkward and very improper method
                                      > for winning a woman's
                                      > > heart'
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > Is it important to win a woman's heart?

                                      Any true individual is a mixture of both man and woman and therefore in order to master
                                      one's own will and gain wisdom one shouldn't be too repulsive to women.

                                      I even recall a section where Nietzsche was bragging about how the women in the market
                                      couldn't rest until they picked out the finest fruit to sell him :)


                                      > This means the Overman is himself false, cruel, contradictory,
                                      > seductive, without meaning; himself exemplifies the necessity of lies.
                                      > He is an *artist*...


                                      No doubt that a post-capitalist era with 'peoples' and 'new tablets of new values' which
                                      will simultaneously encourage higher men while allowing lower ones to sleep well will
                                      require that the over-man not be too much of a candy-ass; that's a given.

                                      So what?
                                    • Sauwelios
                                      ... sublime in Zarathustra. I ... and butterflies as big as ... That may be, but who are you to judge me on that? The pathological (excessive) Dionysian
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Dec 26, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pleaseherpleasehim"
                                        <pleaseherpleasehim@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > Perhaps my Dionysian joy is too pathological for you?
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > No, it just seems like you are more like one of those who are
                                        sublime in Zarathustra. I
                                        > don't hear 'a thousand grimaces of children, angels, owls, fools,
                                        and butterflies as big as
                                        > children' in your tone.
                                        >

                                        That may be, but who are you to judge me on that?

                                        The pathological (excessive) Dionysian corresponds to the sublime
                                        ones, by the way, even as the healthy (moderate) Apollinian
                                        corresponds to the exalted ones (positive ugliness and positive
                                        beauty, respectively).

                                        The sublime is the cloak of the ugly, and the subjugation of terror:

                                        "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.]

                                        This is a tragic period in my life. I'm trying to overcome it, to
                                        laugh over this tragic play or tragic reality ('Ernst',
                                        "seriousness"). I'm of choleric temperament, and such joy is sanguine.

                                        I just found out the choleric temperament corresponds to the element
                                        of fire, whereas sanguine corresponds to air. Fire is the highest
                                        element: as Heraclitus says, a dry soul is the wisest and the best.
                                        The hardest for me is indeed to shrug this weight off my shoulders. I
                                        am a hero, not a (demi)god right now.

                                        "Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive---so wisdom wisheth us;
                                        she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior."
                                        [TSZ, Of Reading and Writing.]

                                        It is true, I'm not truly unconcerned. I must yet overcome my concern
                                        with *myself*. Or do I? Is there anything that matters more? Matters
                                        to whom? To *myself*, of course. Well then! What really matters is
                                        "wisdom", that is to say, "a spiritual and sensual feeling of
                                        perfection" (Nachlass). And how can this alone be attained in this
                                        context?

                                        "Happiness at Becoming is only possible in the *annihilation* of the
                                        real, of "existence", of beautiful appearance, in the pessimistic
                                        shattering of illusion:---*in the annihilation of even the most
                                        beautiful appearance does Dionysian happiness attain its summit*."
                                        [ibid.]

                                        I must carry my blessing Yea-saying into the abyss of Death.

                                        I am the will to power! I am the will to my own destruction!

                                        My will to flourish is an indirect will to perish.
                                      • Sauwelios
                                        ... This insight, that Christian truthfulness has destroyed its own foundation, is complemented (as a second dancing-leg) by the statement nothing is true.
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Dec 27, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                                          wrote:
                                          >
                                          > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pleaseherpleasehim"
                                          > <pleaseherpleasehim@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > 'gruesome seriousness... [is an] awkward and very improper method
                                          > for winning a woman's
                                          > > heart'
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > Is it important to win a woman's heart?
                                          >
                                          > This quote is from BGE Preface, of course (though it would have been
                                          > courteous if you'd have sourced it). The woman in question there is
                                          > Truth. But why seek Truth? The scorpion called Christianity has killed
                                          > itself with its own stinger, the commandment to truthfulness ("Thou
                                          > shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"). Do you think the
                                          > stinger can live on without the scorpion? Wasn't it a part of the
                                          > scorpion? As Nietzsche says, with the death of the Christian God,
                                          > Christian morality has become groundless. The only good reason to be
                                          > truthful now (besides persecution) is that it's courageous, and that
                                          > it's strong, in turn, to be courageous. But what does truthfulness
                                          > mean? It means to see "there is only *one* world, and this is false,
                                          > cruel, contradictory, seductive, without meaning... [...] That lies
                                          > are necessary in order to live is itself part of the terrifying and
                                          > questionable character of existence." (WTP 853.)
                                          >

                                          This insight, that Christian truthfulness has destroyed its own
                                          foundation, is complemented (as a second dancing-leg) by the statement
                                          "nothing is true."

                                          If nothing is true, then isn't it *true* that nothing is true? Doesn't
                                          the statement imply "it is true that nothing is true"? And is it not
                                          thereby a form of the Liar's Paradox ("[it is true that] this
                                          statement is false")? ---Not necessarily, as "nothing is true" also
                                          means that *logic* isn't true; thus the fact that the statement breaks
                                          the law of non-contradiction is no argument against it. Nothing is
                                          true, everything's permitted---even disregarding the axioms of logic!

                                          This is very Heraclitean:

                                          "Heraclitus has as his royal property the highest power of intuitive
                                          conception, whereas towards the other mode of conception which is
                                          consummated by ideas and logical combinations, that is towards reason,
                                          he shows himself cool, apathetic, even hostile, and he seems to derive
                                          a pleasure when he is able to contradict reason by means of a truth
                                          gained intuitively, and this he does in such propositions as:
                                          "Everything has always its opposite within itself," so fearlessly that
                                          Aristotle before the tribunal of reason accuses him of the highest
                                          crime, of having sinned against the law of opposition."
                                          [Nietzsche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, chapter 5.]

                                          Heraclitus says:

                                          "It is disease that makes health sweet and good, hunger satiety,
                                          weariness rest."

                                          We can say the same for war and peace, life and death, truth and
                                          delusion, etc.
                                        • Sauwelios
                                          ... in order to master ... My question was actually a trick question, which you may or may not have guessed. If it s important to win a woman s heart, isn t it
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Dec 27, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "pleaseherpleasehim"
                                            <pleaseherpleasehim@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > > > 'gruesome seriousness... [is an] awkward and very improper method
                                            > > for winning a woman's
                                            > > > heart'
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Is it important to win a woman's heart?
                                            >
                                            > Any true individual is a mixture of both man and woman and therefore
                                            in order to master
                                            > one's own will and gain wisdom one shouldn't be too repulsive to women.
                                            >

                                            My question was actually a trick question, which you may or may not
                                            have guessed. If it's important to win a woman's heart, isn't it
                                            something to take seriously? But then, you say "not *too* repulsive".
                                            I take this to be a display of indifference---which women tend to find
                                            attractive...

                                            Basically, though, you're saying one shouldn't be too repulsive to
                                            *oneself*. I'm reminded of TSZ:

                                            "One day wilt thou see no longer thy loftiness, and see too closely
                                            thy lowliness; thy sublimity itself will frighten thee as a phantom.
                                            Thou wilt one day cry: "All is false!"
                                            There are feelings which seek to slay the lonesome one; if they do not
                                            succeed, then must they themselves die! But art thou capable of
                                            it---to be a murderer?"
                                            [Of the Way of the Creating One.]

                                            Am I capable of sinning against the commandment, "Thou shalt not
                                            murder"? But in what sense is it required to be a murderer here? ---A
                                            murderer of *truth*, a sinner against the commandment, "Thou shalt not
                                            bear false witness against thy neighbour---and thou thyself art thy
                                            nighest neighbour!"...

                                            "[W]henever man rejoices, he is always the same in his rejoicing: he
                                            rejoices as an artist, he enjoys himself as power, he enjoys the lie
                                            as his form of power..."
                                            [WTP 853.]

                                            My power is the power of delusion! I am a Master of delusion! At least
                                            that's what I like to believe...



                                            > I even recall a section where Nietzsche was bragging about how the
                                            women in the market
                                            > couldn't rest until they picked out the finest fruit to sell him :)
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > > This means the Overman is himself false, cruel, contradictory,
                                            > > seductive, without meaning; himself exemplifies the necessity of lies.
                                            > > He is an *artist*...
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > No doubt that a post-capitalist era with 'peoples' and 'new tablets
                                            of new values' which
                                            > will simultaneously encourage higher men while allowing lower ones
                                            to sleep well will
                                            > require that the over-man not be too much of a candy-ass; that's a
                                            given.
                                            >
                                            > So what?
                                            >

                                            It's telling that you focus on "cruel"; I meant to put the accent on
                                            "false" (and "contradictory, seductive"). Note that this whole
                                            discussion began after I'd said "Hail Nietzsche!" (which was the only
                                            thing you quoted in your reply).

                                            Let's look at that passage from Ecce Homo once more:

                                            "[T]his type of man that he [Zarathustra] conceives, conceives reality
                                            *as it is*: it is strong enough for it---, it is not estranged or
                                            removed from it, it is *reality itself* and exemplifies all that is
                                            terrible and questionable in it, *only in that way can man attain
                                            greatness*..."
                                            [EH Destiny, 5.]

                                            We see that Nietzsche first says the Overman conceives reality as it
                                            is, and then goes on to say that he is reality itself. The reverse
                                            order is found in the Genealogy:

                                            "But they [the noble] also [designate themselves] by a *typical
                                            character trait*: and this is the case that concerns us here. They
                                            call themselves, for instance, "the truthful"; this is so above all of
                                            the Greek nobility, whose mouthpiece is the Megarian poet Theognis.
                                            The root of the word coined for this, 'esthlos', signifies one who
                                            *is*, who possesses reality, who is actual, who is true; then, with a
                                            subjective turn, the true as the truthful: in this phase of conceptual
                                            transformation it becomes a slogan and catchword of the nobility and
                                            passes over entirely into the sense of "noble," as distinct from the
                                            *lying* common man".
                                            [GM I:5.]

                                            If "true" to "truthful" is a *subjective* turn, the reverse must be an
                                            *objective* turn. That the true should be truthful is a subjective
                                            turn in that it presupposes that *reality is truthful*; that, to
                                            paraphrase Heraclitus, Nature loves to reveal itself. But Heraclitus
                                            says the converse: Nature loves to *conceal* itself. And Nietzsche
                                            affirms this:

                                            "The will to appearance, to illusion, to delusion, to Becoming and
                                            Changing (to objectified delusion) here [in The Birth of Tragedy]
                                            counts as deeper, more original, more "metaphysical" than the will to
                                            truth, to reality, to Being [I have no idea why Kaufmann has "mere
                                            appearance" here instead of "Being"]:---the last is itself merely a
                                            form of the will to illusion."
                                            [WTP 853.]

                                            The love of revealing is itself merely a *form* of the love of
                                            concealing. The true, then, is the truthful in the sense of
                                            "truthfulness" as a *form* of falsehood. And the noble deceive
                                            themselves about this: they regard themselves as truthful as *opposed*
                                            to "lying", whereas they're really just *greater* liars than the
                                            common man.

                                            "The highest human beings suffer the most from existence,---but they
                                            also have the greatest *counterforces*."
                                            [Nachlass.]

                                            What are these counterforces? ---They are *artistic* forces:

                                            "Art and nothing but art! It is the great enabler of life, the great
                                            seducer to life, the great stimulant to life...
                                            Art as the only superior counterforce to all will to negation of life,
                                            as that which is anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, antinihilist par
                                            excellence.
                                            Art as the *redemption of the man of knowledge*---of those who see the
                                            terrifying and questionable character of existence, who want to see
                                            it, the men of tragic knowledge.
                                            Art as the *redemption of the man of action*---of those who not only
                                            see the terrifying and questionable character of existence, but live
                                            it, want to live it, the tragic-warlike man, the hero.
                                            Art as the *redemption of the man of suffering*---as the way to states
                                            in which suffering is willed, transfigured, deified, where suffering
                                            is a form of great ravishment."
                                            [WTP 853.]

                                            The Overman is "true" in this sense:

                                            ""Life *shall* inspire confidence": the task thus imposed is
                                            tremendous. To solve it, man must be a liar by nature, he must be an
                                            *artist* more than anything else. And he *is* one: metaphysics,
                                            religion, morality, science---all of them only products of his will to
                                            art, to lie [noun], to flight from "truth," to *negation* of "truth."
                                            This ability itself, thanks to which he violates reality by means of
                                            lies, this artistic ability par excellence---he has it in common with
                                            everything that is. He himself is after all a piece of reality, truth,
                                            nature: how should he not also be a piece of *genius in lying*!"
                                            [ibid.]

                                            And the greater a man is, the more ingenious he is in this regard; for
                                            though the above holds for all men, it does not hold for all men
                                            *equally*. In this sense Nietzsche can say the Overman is reality
                                            itself---he exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it:

                                            "The highest state a philosopher can attain: to stand in a Dionysian
                                            relationship to existence---my formula for this is *amor fati*.
                                            It is part of this state to perceive not merely the necessity of those
                                            sides of existence hitherto denied, but their desirability; and not
                                            their desirability merely in relation to the sides hitherto affirmed
                                            (perhaps as their complement or precondition), but for their own sake,
                                            as the more powerful, more truthful, *truer* sides of existence, in
                                            which its will finds clearer expression."
                                            [WTP 1041.]

                                            What will finds clearer expression there? ---The will to power---the
                                            *will to delusion*...

                                            War is worth more than peace; delusion worth more than truth; and life
                                            worth more than death... Even the latter does not go without saying,
                                            as formerly, death ("the afterlife") was deemed higher than life...

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