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

Re: The Grand Style defined.

Expand Messages
  • perpetualburn30298
    ... To add to that idea with a quote from The Gay Science.. Another ideal runs ahead of us, a strange, tempting, dangerous ideal to which we should not wish
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 4, 2008
      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
      > <perpetualburn30298@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I think the nature of mercy was causing me the real problem, so thanks
      > > for clearing that up. Would the passive mercy that you speak of be
      > > similar to Buddha then? The Buddha only imposes his will on himself
      > > to reach new heights, while the overman must recolor the world
      > > around him with his will. I don't have a deep knowledge of Buddhism
      > > so this may be totally wrong. Buddhism aside, I still don't
      > > understand the shift from tragedy to the comedy of existence. I assume
      > > it happens on an individual and social level. Must one always return
      > > to tragedy like societies do? Is it comparable to going back to the
      > > camel again and again only to return to the child, that never ending
      > > process?
      > >
      > > "In order to enhance life, danger and hardship are necessary. So,
      > > though such a society could easily rob its parasites of their
      > > life....True mercy is severity: it is forcing* creatures to overcome
      > > themselves---or to perish"
      > >
      > > So should I assume that in actualizing his power, the overman is not
      > > as 'severe'? Neither toward himself or others? I suppose it is only
      > > natural to become more severe with growth though, so that's obvious
      > > enough.
      > >
      >
      > This is about the point at which a *society* is powerful enough to
      > ignore its parasites. In actualising that power, society's severity is
      > *necessary* (in order to grow more powerful). When that power is
      > actual, severity becomes *entertainment*. It does not *need* to be
      > severe anymore, but it can *choose* to be so. And whereas its
      > *necessary* severity was "tragic" (serious), this new playful severity
      > is "comic". Society's upper class can now toy with its parasites, like
      > gods with men. And by forcing its parasites to become more powerful,
      > it makes life harder for its honest citizens, forcing these to become
      > more powerful as well.
      >
      > This is just a thought on my part, by the way. As far as I know, this
      > is not to be found in Nietzsche.
      >

      To add to that idea with a quote from The Gay Science..

      "Another ideal runs ahead of us, a strange, tempting, dangerous ideal
      to which we should not wish to persuade anybody because we do not
      readily concede the right to it to anyone: the ideal of a spirit who
      plays naively, that is, not deliberately but from overflowing power
      and abundance, with all that was hitherto called holy, good,
      untouchable, divine; for whom those supreme things that the people
      naturally accept as their value standards, signify danger, decay, a
      debasement, or at least recreation, blindness, and temporary
      self-oblivion; the ideal of a human, superhuman well-being and
      benevolence [Wohlseins und Wohlwollens] that will often appear
      inhuman, for example, when it confronts all earthly seriousness so
      far, all solemnity in gesture, word, tone, eye, morality, and task so
      far, as if it were their most incarnate and involuntary parody—and in
      spite of all of this, it is perhaps only with him that great
      seriousness really begins, that the real question mark is posed for
      the first time, that the destiny of the soul changes, the hand moves
      forward, the tragedy begins..."

      I have a question though... In the beginning of this quote he seems to
      refer to the comedy of existence, but at the end, he is back to
      tragedy?.. Are we not in the tragic state right now? Or is it just a
      new tragedy he speaks of? And this new tragedy will take an overman
      living his own comedy of overflowing power.

      "And by forcing its parasites to become more powerful, it makes life
      harder for its honest citizens, forcing these to become more powerful
      as well"


      Would say, however, that only the overman is capable of the comedy of
      existence? Is there a third stage? Comedy, tragedy, and what else?
      Buddhism?

      "the ideal of a spirit who plays naively, that is, not deliberately
      but from overflowing power and abundance"

      Would this be Dionysian intoxication? Vs Apollonian. And if so, is it
      only Dionysian intoxication that defines the free play of the comedic
      overman? ... FYI.. I'm using the phrase Dionysian intoxication in
      reference to what you wrote on that other Nietzsche forum.
    • Sauwelios
      ... No. Comedy is the third stage. The three stages are: 1. Tragedy---the hero; 2. Satyr-play---the demigod; 3. Comedy---God. See BG&E 150. Compare also BOT 8:
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 4, 2008
        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
        <perpetualburn30298@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > To add to that idea with a quote from The Gay Science..
        >
        > "Another ideal runs ahead of us, a strange, tempting, dangerous ideal
        > to which we should not wish to persuade anybody because we do not
        > readily concede the right to it to anyone: the ideal of a spirit who
        > plays naively, that is, not deliberately but from overflowing power
        > and abundance, with all that was hitherto called holy, good,
        > untouchable, divine; for whom those supreme things that the people
        > naturally accept as their value standards, signify danger, decay, a
        > debasement, or at least recreation, blindness, and temporary
        > self-oblivion; the ideal of a human, superhuman well-being and
        > benevolence [Wohlseins und Wohlwollens] that will often appear
        > inhuman, for example, when it confronts all earthly seriousness so
        > far, all solemnity in gesture, word, tone, eye, morality, and task so
        > far, as if it were their most incarnate and involuntary parody—and in
        > spite of all of this, it is perhaps only with him that great
        > seriousness really begins, that the real question mark is posed for
        > the first time, that the destiny of the soul changes, the hand moves
        > forward, the tragedy begins..."
        >
        > I have a question though... In the beginning of this quote he seems to
        > refer to the comedy of existence, but at the end, he is back to
        > tragedy?.. Are we not in the tragic state right now? Or is it just a
        > new tragedy he speaks of? And this new tragedy will take an overman
        > living his own comedy of overflowing power.
        >
        > "And by forcing its parasites to become more powerful, it makes life
        > harder for its honest citizens, forcing these to become more powerful
        > as well"
        >
        >
        > Would say, however, that only the overman is capable of the comedy of
        > existence? Is there a third stage? Comedy, tragedy, and what else?
        > Buddhism?
        >

        No. Comedy is the third stage. The three stages are:

        1. Tragedy---the hero;
        2. Satyr-play---the demigod;
        3. Comedy---God.

        See BG&E 150. Compare also BOT 8:

        "For better or worse, one thing should be quite obvious to all of us:
        the entire comedy of art is not played for our own sakes---for our
        betterment or education, say---nor can we consider ourselves the true
        originators of that art realm; while on the other hand we have every
        right to view ourselves as aesthetic projections of the veritable
        creator and derive such dignity as we possess from our status as art
        works. Only as *aesthetic phenomenon* can the world be *justified* to
        all eternity---although our consciousness of our own significance does
        scarcely exceed the consciousness a painted soldier might have of the
        battle in which he takes part. Thus our whole knowledge of art is at
        bottom illusory, seeing that as mere *knowers* we can never be fused
        with that essential spirit, at the same time creator and spectator,
        who has prepared the comedy of art for his own edification. Only as
        the genius in the act of creation merges with the primal architect of
        the cosmos can he truly know something of the eternal essence of art."

        I will come back to the rest of your post later.
      • Sauwelios
        ... I meant BOT 5.
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 4, 2008
          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > See BG&E 150. Compare also BOT 8:

          I meant BOT 5.
        • perpetualburn30298
          ... hmmm... Is the comedy of art comparable to the comedy of existence. Are they one in the same?... One can be an artist but not an overman, but one can t
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 4, 2008
            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
            > <perpetualburn30298@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > To add to that idea with a quote from The Gay Science..
            > >
            > > "Another ideal runs ahead of us, a strange, tempting, dangerous ideal
            > > to which we should not wish to persuade anybody because we do not
            > > readily concede the right to it to anyone: the ideal of a spirit who
            > > plays naively, that is, not deliberately but from overflowing power
            > > and abundance, with all that was hitherto called holy, good,
            > > untouchable, divine; for whom those supreme things that the people
            > > naturally accept as their value standards, signify danger, decay, a
            > > debasement, or at least recreation, blindness, and temporary
            > > self-oblivion; the ideal of a human, superhuman well-being and
            > > benevolence [Wohlseins und Wohlwollens] that will often appear
            > > inhuman, for example, when it confronts all earthly seriousness so
            > > far, all solemnity in gesture, word, tone, eye, morality, and task so
            > > far, as if it were their most incarnate and involuntary parody—and in
            > > spite of all of this, it is perhaps only with him that great
            > > seriousness really begins, that the real question mark is posed for
            > > the first time, that the destiny of the soul changes, the hand moves
            > > forward, the tragedy begins..."
            > >
            > > I have a question though... In the beginning of this quote he seems to
            > > refer to the comedy of existence, but at the end, he is back to
            > > tragedy?.. Are we not in the tragic state right now? Or is it just a
            > > new tragedy he speaks of? And this new tragedy will take an overman
            > > living his own comedy of overflowing power.
            > >
            > > "And by forcing its parasites to become more powerful, it makes life
            > > harder for its honest citizens, forcing these to become more powerful
            > > as well"
            > >
            > >
            > > Would say, however, that only the overman is capable of the comedy of
            > > existence? Is there a third stage? Comedy, tragedy, and what else?
            > > Buddhism?
            > >
            >
            > No. Comedy is the third stage. The three stages are:
            >
            > 1. Tragedy---the hero;
            > 2. Satyr-play---the demigod;
            > 3. Comedy---God.
            >
            > See BG&E 150. Compare also BOT 8:
            >
            > "For better or worse, one thing should be quite obvious to all of us:
            > the entire comedy of art is not played for our own sakes---for our
            > betterment or education, say---nor can we consider ourselves the true
            > originators of that art realm; while on the other hand we have every
            > right to view ourselves as aesthetic projections of the veritable
            > creator and derive such dignity as we possess from our status as art
            > works. Only as *aesthetic phenomenon* can the world be *justified* to
            > all eternity---although our consciousness of our own significance does
            > scarcely exceed the consciousness a painted soldier might have of the
            > battle in which he takes part. Thus our whole knowledge of art is at
            > bottom illusory, seeing that as mere *knowers* we can never be fused
            > with that essential spirit, at the same time creator and spectator,
            > who has prepared the comedy of art for his own edification. Only as
            > the genius in the act of creation merges with the primal architect of
            > the cosmos can he truly know something of the eternal essence of art."
            >
            > I will come back to the rest of your post later.
            >
            hmmm... Is the 'comedy of art' comparable to the comedy of existence.
            Are they one in the same?... One can be an artist but not an overman,
            but one can't be an overman and not an artist. Yet, both experience
            the 'comedy'... the merging with the 'primal architect'.. Is it then a
            matter of degrees to which this merging is felt? Or rather, the degree
            to which this merging influences the rest of the world.. with the
            overman being at the top.

            In your ealier response on the transition from tragedy to comedy of
            existence, you said..

            " This is about the point at which a *society* is powerful enough to
            ignore its parasites. In actualising that power, society's severity
            is...."

            Where do you put the satyr-play then?... How do you define the
            transition from tragedy to satyr-play to comedy...

            "because we do not readily concede the right to it to anyone: the
            ideal of a spirit who plays naively, that is, not deliberately but
            from overflowing power and abundance"

            In the tragic state, one is 'deliberate'?.. Does the same carry
            through to the satry-play stage? Or is one beginning to be spontaneous.



            This is probably way off but can you compare the three 3 stages above
            with the camel, lion, and child?... Nietzsche often speaks of the
            'great health' but also of giving it up again and again, because one
            must.. Would this be comparable to returning to the camel state from
            the child? I don't quite understand the psychology of wanting to give
            one's hard earned power, unless giving it up is the only way to get a
            stronger health in the future.. which doesn't make sense... It would
            seem that one is only the 'camel' once, by that I mean, one is only
            the camel without the perspective of the child, once... right? Once
            the child has been gained.. to go through the cycle again is the stand
            outside in some way.

            What do you think of Pierre Klossowski's "Nietzsche and the Vicious
            Circle" if you've read it? I was thinking of buying it.
          • Sauwelios
            ... And when a person goeth through fire for his teaching---what doth that prove! It is more, verily, when out of one s own burning cometh one s own
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 5, 2008
              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
              <perpetualburn30298@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
              > wrote:
              >
              >
              > hmmm... Is the 'comedy of art' comparable to the comedy of existence.
              > Are they one in the same?... One can be an artist but not an overman,
              > but one can't be an overman and not an artist. Yet, both experience
              > the 'comedy'... the merging with the 'primal architect'.. Is it then a
              > matter of degrees to which this merging is felt? Or rather, the degree
              > to which this merging influences the rest of the world.. with the
              > overman being at the top.
              >
              > In your ealier response on the transition from tragedy to comedy of
              > existence, you said..
              >
              > " This is about the point at which a *society* is powerful enough to
              > ignore its parasites. In actualising that power, society's severity
              > is...."
              >
              > Where do you put the satyr-play then?... How do you define the
              > transition from tragedy to satyr-play to comedy...
              >

              "And when a person goeth through fire for his teaching---what doth
              that prove! It is more, verily, when out of one's own burning cometh
              one's own teaching!"
              [TSZ, Of the Priests.]

              My experience of that transition is as follows. Let us first recall
              BGE 150:

              "Around the hero everything turns into tragedy, around the demigod
              everything turns into satyr-play, and around God---what? perhaps into
              "world"?"
              [from heart.]

              In my experience, this "hero" corresponds to the Camel from
              Zarathustra's speech Of the Three Metamorphoses. His "God", however,
              is actually Godlessness: it is the void that weighs down on him---his
              devoidness of God.

              The "demigod" corresponds to the Lion from said speech. His freedom
              consists in freedom *from Godlessness*. Around him everything becomes
              satyr-play, because his God is the God of the satyrs, the mad God,
              Dionysus.

              "Here archetypal man was cleansed of the illusion of culture, and what
              revealed itself was authentic man, the bearded satyr jubilantly
              greeting his god."
              [BT 8.]

              And the last step? The last step is again the first step. It
              corresponds to the Child from said speech. As I wrote in my 'mad God'
              group;

              > Contrary to his perspective in
              > The Birth of Tragedy, in which he described Dionysus as the collective
              > hallucination of a group of "satyrs", that is, transfigured Greek men,
              > the transfigured Nietzsche who called himself Dionysus imagined all
              > men to be merely the hallucinations of himself, the Mind, the Godhead.
              > All the world, all of Becoming, existed only in that Mind:
              >
              > "Becoming, experienced and explained from the inside, would be the
              > continuous creation [Schaffen] of one unsatisfied, one awfully rich
              > [Überreichen], one infinitely tense and pressed, of a God, who
              > overcomes the torment of Being only through constant transformation
              > and change [beständiges Verwandeln und Wechseln]: - appearance as his
              > temporary, at-every-moment-attained redemption; the world as the
              > succession of divine visions and redemptions [Erlösungen] in
              > appearance."
              > [Revaluation of All Values, book 4, section 550, my trans.]
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/madgod/message/11

              The "transfigured Nietzsche who called himself Dionysus" is the
              Nietzsche of the "Letters of Insanity", his last letters, from the
              beginning of 1889.

              Thus Nietzsche, according to this view, ended his conscious life on
              the stage of the Child. As I wrote in that same group in reply to a
              question by Moody Lawless;

              > > Did Nietzsche go mad [in your sense of the word]?
              > >
              > > If so, when?
              > >
              >
              > When he realised that 'the world' existed only in his mind; that he
              > was, in fact, All-One - absolutely alone. When he could not prevent
              > that, could not force himself back into the awareness of one man among
              > many, of being only a *part* of the All-One, a fraction, an almost
              > infinitisemal being, a piece of plankton in the midst of the Ocean -
              > he lost his mind, his ability to discern, his faculty of relativation.
              > The great perspectivist lost his perspectivism.
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/madgod/message/12

              Here the crucial step from Godhood to mere manhood (Godlessness,
              hero-hood) is described. The step from this hero-hood to demigodhood
              is in imagining such a God; and the step from demigodhood to Godhood
              is in convincing oneself that all one "perceives" is really no
              perception but a *hallucination*---that everything, including one's
              organs of sense, is a vision of the Mind, which Nietzsche elsewhere
              called the "imagining Being" (see
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/75).

              I haven't read Klossowski's book, but I've heard about it; I forgot
              what, though.
            • perpetualburn30298
              ... I was recently wondering if the Overman, in this comedic state, would still have or need enemies, and what is the distinction between the friend and enemy(
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
                > <perpetualburn30298@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I think the nature of mercy was causing me the real problem, so thanks
                > > for clearing that up. Would the passive mercy that you speak of be
                > > similar to Buddha then? The Buddha only imposes his will on himself
                > > to reach new heights, while the overman must recolor the world
                > > around him with his will. I don't have a deep knowledge of Buddhism
                > > so this may be totally wrong. Buddhism aside, I still don't
                > > understand the shift from tragedy to the comedy of existence. I assume
                > > it happens on an individual and social level. Must one always return
                > > to tragedy like societies do? Is it comparable to going back to the
                > > camel again and again only to return to the child, that never ending
                > > process?
                > >
                > > "In order to enhance life, danger and hardship are necessary. So,
                > > though such a society could easily rob its parasites of their
                > > life....True mercy is severity: it is forcing* creatures to overcome
                > > themselves---or to perish"
                > >
                > > So should I assume that in actualizing his power, the overman is not
                > > as 'severe'? Neither toward himself or others? I suppose it is only
                > > natural to become more severe with growth though, so that's obvious
                > > enough.
                > >
                >
                > This is about the point at which a *society* is powerful enough to
                > ignore its parasites. In actualising that power, society's severity is
                > *necessary* (in order to grow more powerful). When that power is
                > actual, severity becomes *entertainment*. It does not *need* to be
                > severe anymore, but it can *choose* to be so. And whereas its
                > *necessary* severity was "tragic" (serious), this new playful severity
                > is "comic". Society's upper class can now toy with its parasites, like
                > gods with men. And by forcing its parasites to become more powerful,
                > it makes life harder for its honest citizens, forcing these to become
                > more powerful as well.
                >
                > This is just a thought on my part, by the way. As far as I know, this
                > is not to be found in Nietzsche.
                >
                I was recently wondering if the Overman, in this comedic state, would
                still have or need enemies, and what is the distinction between the
                friend and enemy( What the enemy(if there is one) and the friend look
                like in the tragic vs the comedic)?

                "Benefiting and hurting others are ways of exercising one's power upon
                others; that is all one desires in such cases. One hurts those whom
                one wants to feel one's power, for pain is a much more efficient means
                to that end than pleasure; pain always raises the question about its
                origin while pleasure is inclined to stop with itself without looking
                back. We benefit and show benevolence to those who are already
                dependent on us in some way (which means that they are used to
                thinking of us as causes); we want to increase their power because in
                that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it
                is to be in our power; that way they will become more satisfied with
                their condition and more hostile to and willing to fight against the
                enemies of our power."

                The Overman will have people to fight his battles for him.. in so much
                as he is a benefactor.

                "Certainly the state in which we hurt others is rarely as agreeable,
                in an unadulterated way, as that in which we benefit others; it is a
                sign that we are still lacking power, or it shows a sense of
                frustration in the face of this poverty; it is accompanied by new
                dangers and uncertainties for what power we do possess, and clouds our
                horizon with the prospect of revenge, scorn, punishment, and failure.
                It is only for the most irritable and covetous devotees of the feeling
                of power that it is perhaps more pleasurable to imprint the seal of
                power on a recalcitrant brow—those for whom the sight of those who are
                already subjected (the objects of benevolence) is a burden and
                boredom. What is decisive is how one is accustomed to spice one's
                life: it is a matter of taste whether one prefers the slow or the
                sudden, the assured or the dangerous and audacious increase of power;
                one seeks this or that spice depending on one's temperament."

                Could this "unadulterated" hurting be equated with the guilt free
                aggression of the barbarian(blond beast). Yet, one can not
                give(benefit) if one is hurting.

                "But war is another thing. I am essentially a warrior. To attack is
                instinctive with me. To be able to be an enemy, to be an enemy-this,
                perhaps, presupposes a strong nature; in any case it is bound up with
                all strong natures. They need resistance, accordingly they seek for
                it: the pathos of aggression belongs of necessity to strength as much
                as the feelings of revenge and rancor belong to weakness"(EH).. he
                then goes on to talk about the four principles of his war tactics.

                Can a distinction be made then between a type of attacking that
                "hurts" vs a type of attacking that benefits?...how the noble type
                channels his resentment(pathos of aggression). The Overman is , of
                course, being the type that benefits people. One gets stronger by
                overcoming a resistance, but is this resistance necessarily produced
                by an enemy(as it relates to the Overman i mean). There are many
                types of resistance obviously.. so i guess what i mean is... What is
                the distinction between the resistance offered by the friend vs the
                resistance offered by the enemy?


                "The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must also be
                able to hate his friends"

                If one is hating one's friends does it follow that one can not give to
                one's friends?

                Could this "hate" be equated with the "hurt" above.. the "hurt" on the
                way to "benefit"?

                Maybe the distinction between friend and enemy is that one doesn't
                give to the enemy...the enemy is a useful tool on our way to achieving
                a power to give. The friend thus serves the role of enemy(on the way
                to the giving power) and as the receiver from our giving...a friend
                can be an enemy but an enemy can not be a friend? just an idea.

                "Let the friend
                be the festival of the earth to you, and a foretaste of the Superman.
                I teach you the friend and his overflowing heart. But one must
                know how to be a sponge, if one would be loved by over-flowing hearts.
                I teach you the friend in whom the world standeth complete, a
                capsule of the good,- the creating friend, who hath always a
                complete world to bestow"

                This quote here seems to kind of contradict what I just said.. with
                the "hath always a complete world to bestow" part... implying that the
                friend doesn't hate(only gives)... but maybe not, because in a
                friendship there is always one person giving and one person receiving,
                with each friend going back and forth between a receiver and a giver
                role.. so maybe only when the friend is the receiver does the other
                friend become an 'enemy'... The friend that is giving shows the friend
                that is receiving his "lack of power," his poverty. He then of course
                will want to become a benefactor himself... So it's sort of a
                competition to give...

                Can a distinction be made between the sort of giving between friends
                and the general sort of giving to culture? It's like there's an inner
                circle of giving with(NOTE 'with' friends not TO) friends... and the
                enemy in the friend helps us to 'overcome resistance' and give... and
                then there's the outer ring of giving to culture(and this too has its
                enemies)... But these enemies are too far removed to give back(at
                least right away..if ever.)... Or maybe in giving to the outer ring of
                culture, we give to friends of the future.

                "Let the future and the furthest be the motive of thy today; in thy
                friend shalt thou love the Superman as thy motive."


                Last thing...

                "Courage and freedom of feeling before a powerful enemy, before a
                sublime calamity, before a problem that arouses dread--this triumphant
                state is what the tragic artist chooses, what he glorifies. Before
                tragedy, what is warlike in our soul celebrates its Saturnalia;
                whoever is used to suffering, whoever seeks out suffering, the heroic
                man praises his own being through tragedy--to him alone the tragedian
                presents this drink of sweetest cruelty."

                Enemies arouse dread? The dread of a "poverty" from the first quote?
                Is this dread only experienced in tragedy? Could this help explain
                how resistance is seen from a comedic vs tragic perspective... and
                possibly the difference between a comedic and tragic friendship.. a
                difference in the sort of "competition" I talked about above.
                Is the comedy of existence only a state of the Overman?
              • perpetualburn30298
                ... thanks ... assume ... return ... So perhaps friendship is based on taste... the taste for the Overman. But do enemies share such a taste?... I don t think
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 31, 2008
                  --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
                  <perpetualburn30298@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn30298"
                  > > <perpetualburn30298@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > I think the nature of mercy was causing me the real problem, so
                  thanks
                  > > > for clearing that up. Would the passive mercy that you speak of be
                  > > > similar to Buddha then? The Buddha only imposes his will on himself
                  > > > to reach new heights, while the overman must recolor the world
                  > > > around him with his will. I don't have a deep knowledge of Buddhism
                  > > > so this may be totally wrong. Buddhism aside, I still don't
                  > > > understand the shift from tragedy to the comedy of existence. I
                  assume
                  > > > it happens on an individual and social level. Must one always
                  return
                  > > > to tragedy like societies do? Is it comparable to going back to the
                  > > > camel again and again only to return to the child, that never ending
                  > > > process?
                  > > >
                  > > > "In order to enhance life, danger and hardship are necessary. So,
                  > > > though such a society could easily rob its parasites of their
                  > > > life....True mercy is severity: it is forcing* creatures to overcome
                  > > > themselves---or to perish"
                  > > >
                  > > > So should I assume that in actualizing his power, the overman is not
                  > > > as 'severe'? Neither toward himself or others? I suppose it is only
                  > > > natural to become more severe with growth though, so that's obvious
                  > > > enough.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > This is about the point at which a *society* is powerful enough to
                  > > ignore its parasites. In actualising that power, society's severity is
                  > > *necessary* (in order to grow more powerful). When that power is
                  > > actual, severity becomes *entertainment*. It does not *need* to be
                  > > severe anymore, but it can *choose* to be so. And whereas its
                  > > *necessary* severity was "tragic" (serious), this new playful severity
                  > > is "comic". Society's upper class can now toy with its parasites, like
                  > > gods with men. And by forcing its parasites to become more powerful,
                  > > it makes life harder for its honest citizens, forcing these to become
                  > > more powerful as well.
                  > >
                  > > This is just a thought on my part, by the way. As far as I know, this
                  > > is not to be found in Nietzsche.
                  > >
                  > I was recently wondering if the Overman, in this comedic state, would
                  > still have or need enemies, and what is the distinction between the
                  > friend and enemy( What the enemy(if there is one) and the friend look
                  > like in the tragic vs the comedic)?
                  >
                  > "Benefiting and hurting others are ways of exercising one's power upon
                  > others; that is all one desires in such cases. One hurts those whom
                  > one wants to feel one's power, for pain is a much more efficient means
                  > to that end than pleasure; pain always raises the question about its
                  > origin while pleasure is inclined to stop with itself without looking
                  > back. We benefit and show benevolence to those who are already
                  > dependent on us in some way (which means that they are used to
                  > thinking of us as causes); we want to increase their power because in
                  > that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it
                  > is to be in our power; that way they will become more satisfied with
                  > their condition and more hostile to and willing to fight against the
                  > enemies of our power."
                  >
                  > The Overman will have people to fight his battles for him.. in so much
                  > as he is a benefactor.
                  >
                  > "Certainly the state in which we hurt others is rarely as agreeable,
                  > in an unadulterated way, as that in which we benefit others; it is a
                  > sign that we are still lacking power, or it shows a sense of
                  > frustration in the face of this poverty; it is accompanied by new
                  > dangers and uncertainties for what power we do possess, and clouds our
                  > horizon with the prospect of revenge, scorn, punishment, and failure.
                  > It is only for the most irritable and covetous devotees of the feeling
                  > of power that it is perhaps more pleasurable to imprint the seal of
                  > power on a recalcitrant brow—those for whom the sight of those who are
                  > already subjected (the objects of benevolence) is a burden and
                  > boredom. What is decisive is how one is accustomed to spice one's
                  > life: it is a matter of taste whether one prefers the slow or the
                  > sudden, the assured or the dangerous and audacious increase of power;
                  > one seeks this or that spice depending on one's temperament."
                  >
                  > Could this "unadulterated" hurting be equated with the guilt free
                  > aggression of the barbarian(blond beast). Yet, one can not
                  > give(benefit) if one is hurting.
                  >
                  > "But war is another thing. I am essentially a warrior. To attack is
                  > instinctive with me. To be able to be an enemy, to be an enemy-this,
                  > perhaps, presupposes a strong nature; in any case it is bound up with
                  > all strong natures. They need resistance, accordingly they seek for
                  > it: the pathos of aggression belongs of necessity to strength as much
                  > as the feelings of revenge and rancor belong to weakness"(EH).. he
                  > then goes on to talk about the four principles of his war tactics.
                  >
                  > Can a distinction be made then between a type of attacking that
                  > "hurts" vs a type of attacking that benefits?...how the noble type
                  > channels his resentment(pathos of aggression). The Overman is , of
                  > course, being the type that benefits people. One gets stronger by
                  > overcoming a resistance, but is this resistance necessarily produced
                  > by an enemy(as it relates to the Overman i mean). There are many
                  > types of resistance obviously.. so i guess what i mean is... What is
                  > the distinction between the resistance offered by the friend vs the
                  > resistance offered by the enemy?
                  >
                  >
                  > "The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must also be
                  > able to hate his friends"
                  >
                  > If one is hating one's friends does it follow that one can not give to
                  > one's friends?
                  >
                  > Could this "hate" be equated with the "hurt" above.. the "hurt" on the
                  > way to "benefit"?
                  >
                  > Maybe the distinction between friend and enemy is that one doesn't
                  > give to the enemy...the enemy is a useful tool on our way to achieving
                  > a power to give. The friend thus serves the role of enemy(on the way
                  > to the giving power) and as the receiver from our giving...a friend
                  > can be an enemy but an enemy can not be a friend? just an idea.
                  >
                  > "Let the friend
                  > be the festival of the earth to you, and a foretaste of the Superman.
                  > I teach you the friend and his overflowing heart. But one must
                  > know how to be a sponge, if one would be loved by over-flowing hearts.
                  > I teach you the friend in whom the world standeth complete, a
                  > capsule of the good,- the creating friend, who hath always a
                  > complete world to bestow"
                  >
                  > This quote here seems to kind of contradict what I just said.. with
                  > the "hath always a complete world to bestow" part... implying that the
                  > friend doesn't hate(only gives)... but maybe not, because in a
                  > friendship there is always one person giving and one person receiving,
                  > with each friend going back and forth between a receiver and a giver
                  > role.. so maybe only when the friend is the receiver does the other
                  > friend become an 'enemy'... The friend that is giving shows the friend
                  > that is receiving his "lack of power," his poverty. He then of course
                  > will want to become a benefactor himself... So it's sort of a
                  > competition to give...
                  >
                  > Can a distinction be made between the sort of giving between friends
                  > and the general sort of giving to culture? It's like there's an inner
                  > circle of giving with(NOTE 'with' friends not TO) friends... and the
                  > enemy in the friend helps us to 'overcome resistance' and give... and
                  > then there's the outer ring of giving to culture(and this too has its
                  > enemies)... But these enemies are too far removed to give back(at
                  > least right away..if ever.)... Or maybe in giving to the outer ring of
                  > culture, we give to friends of the future.
                  >
                  > "Let the future and the furthest be the motive of thy today; in thy
                  > friend shalt thou love the Superman as thy motive."
                  >
                  So perhaps friendship is based on taste... the taste for the Overman.
                  But do enemies share such a taste?... I don't think so.. think
                  Dionysus vs The Crucified..

                  "If one would have a friend, then must one also be willing to wage
                  war for him: and in order to wage war, one must be capable of being an
                  enemy."

                  One wages war FOR a friend, and AGAINST an enemy.
                  But to wage war for a friend one must be an enemy.. one must know how
                  to be against before one can be 'for' a friend. What does it mean to
                  wage war 'for' a friend then? Is it maybe for the Overman?

                  Nietzsche says elsewhere that friendship is based on shared joy not
                  compassion. If friendship is based on joy then, is the enemy
                  relationship based on hatred..or maybe contempt?

                  "Ye shall only have enemies to be hated, but not enemies to be
                  despised. Ye must be proud of your enemies; then, the successes of
                  your enemies are also your successes."

                  >
                  > Last thing...
                  >
                  > "Courage and freedom of feeling before a powerful enemy, before a
                  > sublime calamity, before a problem that arouses dread--this triumphant
                  > state is what the tragic artist chooses, what he glorifies. Before
                  > tragedy, what is warlike in our soul celebrates its Saturnalia;
                  > whoever is used to suffering, whoever seeks out suffering, the heroic
                  > man praises his own being through tragedy--to him alone the tragedian
                  > presents this drink of sweetest cruelty."
                  >
                  > Enemies arouse dread? The dread of a "poverty" from the first quote?
                  > Is this dread only experienced in tragedy? Could this help explain
                  > how resistance is seen from a comedic vs tragic perspective... and
                  > possibly the difference between a comedic and tragic friendship.. a
                  > difference in the sort of "competition" I talked about above.
                  > Is the comedy of existence only a state of the Overman?
                  >
                • Sauwelios
                  *Improving one s thoughts.*---To improve one s style means to improve one s thoughts and nothing else! If you do not straightaway agree with this it will be
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 3, 2008
                    "*Improving one's thoughts.*---To improve one's style means to improve
                    one's thoughts and nothing else! If you do not straightaway agree with
                    this it will be impossible to convince you of it."
                    [The Wanderer and His Shadow, 131, entire.]

                    From this aphorism alone it would follow that the grand style follows
                    from great thoughts. Now we might say that only great men have great
                    thoughts; but I have recently come to revise the idea that the grand
                    style always spring from great men---though in a sense it still holds.

                    "*Erôs* arises [in the lover] in response to the gulf that separates
                    the exemplary human being from all others, and it naturally aspires to
                    bridge this gulf. While the self-overflowing emanations of the will
                    establish and preserve the *pathos* of distance, *erôs* strives to
                    eliminate or minimize the distance between lover and beloved. The
                    excitation of *erôs* in turn fortifies the lover's will, enabling him
                    to accept his beloved's unintended invitation to enter the "circle of
                    culture." (Although Nietzsche ocassionally remarks favorably on
                    heterosexual love, he typically favors male gender designations for
                    both the lover(s) and the beloved.)
                    As he explains in a remarkable note written in the spring of 1888, the
                    excitation of *erôs* transfigures the lover, elevating him---if only
                    temporarily---to the lofty station of his beloved:

                    > The lover becomes a squanderer ['Verschwender']: he is rich
                    > enough for it. Now he dares, becomes an adventurer, becomes an
                    > ass in magnanimity and innocence; he believes in God again, he
                    > believes in virtue, because he believes in love; and on the
                    > other hand, this happy idiot grows wings and new capabilities,
                    > and even the door of art is opened to him. (WP 808)

                    Blinded by *erôs* to his beloved's indifference, "this happy idiot"
                    mistakes his beloved's need to disgorge himself for an invitation to
                    permanent union. He consequently "grows wings" and ventures to bridge
                    the gulf that ordinarily separates them. In so doing he becomes, like
                    his beloved, a squanderer, leaving comfort, conformity, and good sense
                    behind."
                    [Daniel Conway, 'Love's labor's lost' (essay).]

                    Also in said "remarkable note", Nietzsche says:

                    "[W]e should do wrong if we stopped with its [art's] power to lie: it
                    does more than merely imagine; it even transposes values. And it is
                    not only that it transposes the *feeling* of values: the lover *is*
                    more valuable, is stronger. In animals this condition produces new
                    weapons, pigments, colors, and forms; above all, new movements, new
                    rhythms, new love calls and seductions. It is no different with man.
                    His whole economy is richer than before, more powerful, more
                    *complete* than in those who do not love."

                    A man whose *erôs* is aroused by a (seemingly) great man may therefore
                    temporarily acquire greatness himself---and works in the grand style
                    may spring from him.
                  • Sauwelios
                    ... The most powerful human beings have always inspired architects; the architect has always been under the spell of power [ Suggestion der Macht ]. His
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 8, 2008
                      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > "*Improving one's thoughts.*---To improve one's style means to improve
                      > one's thoughts and nothing else! If you do not straightaway agree with
                      > this it will be impossible to convince you of it."
                      > [The Wanderer and His Shadow, 131, entire.]
                      >
                      > From this aphorism alone it would follow that the grand style follows
                      > from great thoughts. Now we might say that only great men have great
                      > thoughts; but I have recently come to revise the idea that the grand
                      > style always spring from great men---though in a sense it still holds.
                      >
                      > "*Erôs* arises [in the lover] in response to the gulf that separates
                      > the exemplary human being from all others, and it naturally aspires to
                      > bridge this gulf. While the self-overflowing emanations of the will
                      > establish and preserve the *pathos* of distance, *erôs* strives to
                      > eliminate or minimize the distance between lover and beloved. The
                      > excitation of *erôs* in turn fortifies the lover's will, enabling him
                      > to accept his beloved's unintended invitation to enter the "circle of
                      > culture." (Although Nietzsche ocassionally remarks favorably on
                      > heterosexual love, he typically favors male gender designations for
                      > both the lover(s) and the beloved.)
                      > As he explains in a remarkable note written in the spring of 1888, the
                      > excitation of *erôs* transfigures the lover, elevating him---if only
                      > temporarily---to the lofty station of his beloved:
                      >
                      > > The lover becomes a squanderer ['Verschwender']: he is rich
                      > > enough for it. Now he dares, becomes an adventurer, becomes an
                      > > ass in magnanimity and innocence; he believes in God again, he
                      > > believes in virtue, because he believes in love; and on the
                      > > other hand, this happy idiot grows wings and new capabilities,
                      > > and even the door of art is opened to him. (WP 808)
                      >
                      > Blinded by *erôs* to his beloved's indifference, "this happy idiot"
                      > mistakes his beloved's need to disgorge himself for an invitation to
                      > permanent union. He consequently "grows wings" and ventures to bridge
                      > the gulf that ordinarily separates them. In so doing he becomes, like
                      > his beloved, a squanderer, leaving comfort, conformity, and good sense
                      > behind."
                      > [Daniel Conway, 'Love's labor's lost' (essay).]
                      >
                      > Also in said "remarkable note", Nietzsche says:
                      >
                      > "[W]e should do wrong if we stopped with its [art's] power to lie: it
                      > does more than merely imagine; it even transposes values. And it is
                      > not only that it transposes the *feeling* of values: the lover *is*
                      > more valuable, is stronger. In animals this condition produces new
                      > weapons, pigments, colors, and forms; above all, new movements, new
                      > rhythms, new love calls and seductions. It is no different with man.
                      > His whole economy is richer than before, more powerful, more
                      > *complete* than in those who do not love."
                      >
                      > A man whose *erôs* is aroused by a (seemingly) great man may therefore
                      > temporarily acquire greatness himself---and works in the grand style
                      > may spring from him.
                      >

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

                      Here we see how "the most powerful human beings" (great men) may
                      inspire other, lesser men (e.g., architects) to greatness themselves,
                      in which (temporary) state they may even create works in the grand
                      style (which communicate their (temporarily) great souls, which in
                      turn reflect the greatness of the souls that inspired them).
                    • Sauwelios
                      ... In support of my definition of the grand style: What do these houses mean? VERILY, NO GREAT SOUL PUT THEM UP AS ITS SIMILE! Did perhaps a silly child
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 16, 2009
                        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Again, there has been little activity in this group lately, and again,
                        > that doesn't mean I have abandoned it.
                        >
                        > I have been active on a Nietzsche forum, among other things, where I
                        > further developed my understanding of the grand style.
                        >
                        > First off, I found out the phrase 'im grossen Stil' is a standing
                        > expression in German meaning "on a grand scale". But the *key* to my
                        > current understanding of the concept was BGE 245:
                        >
                        > "[A]s for Schumann, who took things seriously and was also taken
                        > seriously from the first -- he was the last to found a school --: do
                        > we not now think it a piece of good fortune, a relief, a liberation
                        > that this Schumann-romanticism has been overcome? Schumann, fleeing
                        > into the "Saxon Switzerland" [mountains south of Dresden] of his soul,
                        > his nature half Werther [the suicidal hero of Goethe's 'The Sorrows of
                        > Young Werther' (1774)], half Jean Paul, not at all like Beethoven, not
                        > at all Byronic! -- his music for Manfred is a mistake and
                        > misunderstanding to the point of injustice -- Schumann, with his taste
                        > which was fundamentally a *petty* taste ['ein kleiner Geschmack', "a
                        > small taste"; 'klein' is the usual antonym of 'gross', "great, grand"]
                        > (that is to say a dangerous inclination, doubly dangerous among
                        > Germans, for quiet lyricism and drunkenness of feeling), continually
                        > going aside, shyly withdrawing and retiring, a noble effeminate
                        > delighting in nothing but anonymous weal and woe, a kind of girl and
                        > noli me tangere [touch me not] from the first: this Schumann was
                        > already a merely *German* event in music, no longer a European event,
                        > as Beethoven was, as to an even greater extent Mozart had been -- in
                        > him German music was threatened with its greatest danger, that of
                        > *losing the voice for the soul of Europe* and sinking into a merely
                        > national affair."
                        >
                        > Here Schumann's "petty" taste is directly connected to petty politics.
                        > And "classical taste" is evidently connected to "classical style", the
                        > precursor of the grand style, in some of Nietzsche's posthumously
                        > published notes -- which means we may connect pettiness of taste with
                        > pettiness of style.
                        >
                        > petty style <--> petty politics
                        >
                        > grand style <--> great politics ['die grosse Politik']
                        >
                        > Nietzsche's "great politics" is politics on a grand scale: not
                        > nationalistic, but at least European, and ultimately worldwide.
                        >
                        > Is great politics *only* politics on a grand scale? Would "wretched
                        > ephemeral babble of politics and *international* self-seeking", to
                        > paraphrase the preface to The Antichrist, count as great politics for
                        > Nietzsche? Certainly not. In what is evidently a sketch for the "Law
                        > Against Christianity" that concludes The Antichrist, Nietzsche writes:
                        >
                        > "*First proposition*: great politics seeks to turn physiology into the
                        > ruler ['die Herrin'] over all other questions; it seeks to create a
                        > power strong enough to *breed* mankind as a whole and as something
                        > higher [compare TSZ, 'Of the Thousand and One Goals', where the "one
                        > goal" which first makes a whole of mankind is the creation of the
                        > Overman], with merciless severity against what degenerates and what
                        > parasitises life, -- against what corrupts, poisons, calumniates,
                        > ruins ... and sees in the destruction of life the mark of a higher
                        > species of soul."
                        > [Nachlass December 1888-beginning of January 1889 25 [1], my translation.]
                        >
                        > My next step was inspired by something Moody Lawless, an esteemed
                        > member of this group, had once said: that great politics be politics
                        > aimed at the development of great men (my formulation).
                        >
                        > Now from the last quote, it is evident that great politics is
                        > concerned primarily with the great man ['der grosse Mensch']: with the
                        > *breeding* of great men, with "the Olympian existence and ever-renewed
                        > procreation and preparation" of the great man, to speak with The Greek
                        > State. We have thus established the following connection:
                        >
                        > grand style <-- great taste --> great politics --> the great man
                        >
                        > But only great men have great taste, of course. The grand style thus
                        > follows from (the great taste of) the great man -- as does great
                        > politics. Great politics, which is politics as practiced by great men,
                        > is concerned with the development of the great man. This suggests
                        > that, likewise, the grand style is concerned with the development of
                        > the great man. But great politics and the grand style take different
                        > directions. Great politics is concerned with the actual, physical
                        > development of the great man: with breeding him, training him,
                        > preparing for and furthering his physical existence. May the grand
                        > style then be concerned with his *spiritual* development? A great man
                        > is a man whom Nature has constructed and invented in the grand style:
                        >
                        > "A great man -- a man whom nature has constructed and invented in the
                        > grand style -- what is he?"
                        > [WTP 962.]
                        >
                        > Before great men can practice great politics, i.e., politics aimed at
                        > the development of the great man, Nature must first have developed
                        > such great men (or at least *one* great man), that is, he must have
                        > come about "by accident", that is, unwillingly and/or unwittingly.
                        > This idea is also found in The Greek State:
                        >
                        > "Here again we see with what pitiless inflexibility Nature, in order
                        > to arrive at Society, forges for herself the cruel tool of the State
                        > -- namely, that *conqueror* with the iron hand".
                        >
                        > That conqueror is the "tool" of the State in that he *creates* the
                        > State, by conquering, in war, a strange people, and subjecting it, so
                        > that there arises a class society, of which the conquered people makes
                        > up the underclass, the base of the pyramid. The top of that pyramid is
                        > made up of what Nietzsche at the time of writing The Greek State still
                        > calls "geniuses", whom he will later call "great men" or "Overmen".
                        >
                        > The "conqueror with the iron hand" is himself such a "genius":
                        >
                        > "the military genius -- with whom we have become acquainted as the
                        > original founder of states."
                        > [ibid.]
                        >
                        > The Greek word for "State" is 'polis', whence "politics". The
                        > Classical State (i.e., the organisation of society into classes or
                        > castes] is necessary for the *intentional* physical development of
                        > great men: hence "great politics" (the occupation with a pyramidal
                        > State focused at its top, the great man).
                        >
                        > Great politics, then, is concerned with constructing and inventing men
                        > in the grand style. But men can also construct and invent *other*
                        > things than men: for instance, buildings, statues, musical
                        > compositions -- "artworks" in the narrow sense of the word. But the
                        > "beauty" of these artworks consists in their reminding us of the
                        > essential work of art: man himself:
                        >
                        > "Nothing is more conditional -- or, let us say, *narrower 8 -- than
                        > our feeling for beauty. Whoever would think of it apart from man's joy
                        > in man would immediately lose any foothold. "Beautiful in itself" is a
                        > mere phrase, not even a concept. In the beautiful, man posits himself
                        > as the measure of perfection; in special cases he worships himself in
                        > it. A species *cannot* do otherwise but thus affirm itself alone. Its
                        > *lowest* instinct, that of self-preservation and self-expansion, still
                        > radiates in such sublimities."
                        > [Twilight, 'Skirmishes', 19.]
                        >
                        > "The ugly is understood as a suggestion and symptom of degeneration:
                        > whatever reminds us in the least of degeneration causes in us the
                        > judgment of "ugly." Every indication of exhaustion, of heaviness, of
                        > age, of weariness; every kind of lack of freedom, such as cramps, such
                        > as paralysis; and above all, the smell, the color, the form of
                        > dissolution, of decomposition -- even in the ultimate attenuation into
                        > a symbol -- all evoke the same reaction, the value judgment, "ugly"
                        > ['hässlich', "hately"]. A *hatred* is aroused -- but whom does man
                        > hate then? But there is no doubt: the *decline of his type*. Here he
                        > hates out of the deepest instinct of the species; in this hatred there
                        > is a shudder, caution, depth, farsightedness—it is the deepest hatred
                        > there is. It is because of this that art is *deep*..."
                        > [ibid., 20.]
                        >
                        > The converse is also true, of course: whatever reminds us in the least
                        > of "sursumgeneration" (generation upward) causes in us the judgment of
                        > "beautiful". A *love* is aroused -- whom does man love then? The
                        > *ascension of his type*. And "artworks" in the narrow sense may very
                        > well remind us of such ascension. An artwork in the grand style will
                        > remind the great man of the ascension of his type, and thereby cause
                        > the judgment "beautiful" in him. This is why the "beautiful feelings"
                        > an artist arouses prove nothing regarding his greatness: only if he
                        > arouses beautiful feelings in a *great man* do these feelings mean
                        > anything. So seeking to define the grand style inevitably leads us to
                        > the task of "defining" the great man. For my new "definition" of the
                        > grand style makes it a function of the great man:
                        >
                        > "The grand style really communicates the soul of a great man."
                        >
                        > There are two references to passages from Nietzsche's books in this
                        > "definition".
                        >
                        > 1.
                        >
                        > "*Good* is any style that really communicates an inner state".
                        > [Ecce Homo, 'Good Books', 4.]
                        >
                        > 2.
                        >
                        > "In the beginning, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste:
                        > their predominance did not lie mainly in physical strength but in
                        > strength of the soul -- they were more *whole* human beings (which
                        > also means, at every level, "more whole beasts")."
                        > [BGE 257.]
                        >
                        > "Soul" does not mean a supernatural, immortal essence here, of course.
                        > As Zarathustra says in 'Of the Three Evils', the soul is the "symbol
                        > and epitome" ('Gleichniss und Auszug') of the body. It is on the body
                        > that we must focus, then. We must occupy ourselves with great
                        > politics! But in order to do that, we must ourselves be great men.
                        > Then again, that is precisely what Nietzsche expects from his readers:
                        > consider the preface to The Antichrist.
                        >

                        In support of my "definition" of the grand style:

                        "What do these houses mean? VERILY, NO GREAT SOUL PUT THEM UP AS ITS SIMILE!
                        Did perhaps a silly child take them out of its toy-box? Would that another child put them again into the box!
                        And these rooms and chambers---can men go out and in there? They seem to be made for silk dolls; or for dainty-eaters, who perhaps let others eat with them."
                        [TSZ, Of the Bedwarfing Virtue, 1, with added emphasis.]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.