Re: The Nietzsche Pyramid (discussion forum site).
- To Moody:
I'm in part 3 (Eros) now, and it truly is an amazing book, Moody. It's
implications seem quite un-Nietzschean, though (though also very
Aren't order of rank, patriarchy, etc. Apollinian? Methinks the
feminine is closer to the infantile (women are traditionally dependent
on men; they also resemble children more than men (high voice, smooth
skin, less body hair, etc.)). Consider the Freudian term "genital
organisation": is it not more Nietzschean to have an order of rank of
the various body parts with the genital organs on top, rather than
equality or anarchy among the body parts?
To all members: I've been inactive in this Group recently because of a
philosophical problem, which I want to introduce here, but introducing
which proves to be quite a task. If I were to write an essay (or a
book) on the whole problem, it would have the working title at least
of "The Plato-Nietzsche Cycle". I foresee a new Tragic Age.
To Visionsofglory: I'm really starting to like Creed of Iron. I've
discovered it's great music to walk (march) to, especially when it's
cold, dark, and snowing!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Moody Lawless
>is the first to make the distinction between Soul and Body.
> Just on that point - Brown's thesis is quite thought-provoking.
> He has the Shaman as the ancestor of the Philosopher, as the former
> Plato is the exemplar in this trend, of course.elevation of the Soul and Reason: this is Apollonian.
> Western philosophy then continues this tradition of separation and
> ÂDionysos, but rather an attempt to destroy the Apollonian ego and
> The Dionysian is all Body and irrational.
> The heirs of the Dionysian are de Sade, Hitler and Nietzsche.
> Brown says that the later Nietzsche is not a synthesis of Apollo and
replace it with a Dionysian ego - an immense task begun by the
threeÂ last named.
> [See the chapter 'Apollo and Dionysus' in 'Life After Death']was Dionysian as a performer.
> Morrison was a Shaman as film theorist [all based on vision], but he
> He confused the Shamanic with the Dionysian.forum site).
> --- On Sat, 24/1/09, Sauwelios <sauwelios@...> wrote:
> From: Sauwelios <sauwelios@...>
> Subject: [human_superhuman] Re: The Nietzsche Pyramid (discussion
> To: email@example.com
> Date: Saturday, 24 January, 2009, 4:19 PM
> As for the shaman being Apollonian: I can relate to that, though I do
> have reservations. For instance, in chapter 1 of The Birth of Tragedy,
> Nietzsche distinguishes between the Apollonian and the Dionysian by
> the hand of the example of healthy and pathological dreaming. I think
> the shaman thrusts himself into the *pathos* of the Dionysian, and
> then seeks to bring his world, which is transformed into a Chaos, back
> within the bounds of the Orderly (the healthy). His plunge into
> sickness thus re-valuates health: as Heraclitus says, sickness makes
> health sweet and good.
> Recent Activity
> Visit Your Group
> Yahoo! News
> Fashion News
> What's the word on
> fashion and style?
> Yahoo! Groups
> Going Green Zone
> Find ways to go green.
> Join a green group.
> Yahoo! Groups
> Cat Group
> Join a group for
> people who love cats
Isn't part two Eros? Anyway, I'm very near the end now, and have found the book to be a stimulating journey.Brown seems to take Nietzsche's 'findings' and draw from them his own conclusions which often differ from Nietzsche's due mainly to Brown's reading of Marx and Freud.What is important for me is the suggestive nature of his ideas in relation to the Nietzschean influence on JDM (my reason for reading the book in the first place, despite Brown being outside of my usual aryanosophical ambit).We can assume that Brown's "unrepressed man" is comparable to the Uebermensch. But the latter is surely more akin to two types that Brown ultimately rejects: - (i) archaic man (cycles of recurrence), and (ii) Faustian man (and here Brown borrows from Spengler of course).To Brown both these types are still trapped in guilt, the former returning to it eternally and the latter accumulating guilt to the point of destruction. However Brown's 'unrepressed man' is akin, it seems, to a Protestant type [and so may appeal to you more than myself, Sauwelios], rejecting 'filth' etc., and offering a 'resurrection' of the body.So Brown doesn't seem to deliver on the promise of offering a new departure that he sets up in the main of the book. His unrepressed man is therefore something of a disappointment.If order of rank is inherent in Nature then it can be neither Apollonian or Dionysian. But then can we know what is inherently natural per se ? If Nietzsche is right and we cannot escape from perspectives, then we cannot look at Nature without anthropmorphising her. So we see order of rank in Nature because we put it there.Brown says that the archaic is closer to the feminine [and he puts the cycle of eternal return in the archaic]. This would make it Aryan too, as the Hebraic is seen as patriarchal, the precursor of the modern [and Faustian!] and the linear.But again, are such dualisms [male/female, Apollo/Dionysos] part of perspective too? Are they 'in Nature' ?What is the basic essence of order of rank? Is it not master/slave, another dualism a la Hegel? And if male/female is dialectical is androgyny the synthesis? To Brown androgyny is prior to genital organisation, not femininity.Likewise, multiplicity could be prior to order of rank, not equality - and multiplicity avoids a straight choice between anarchy and equality: there is multiplicity in Nature, with order of rank as an aristocratic perspective..
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
> To Moody:
> I'm in part 3 (Eros) now, and it truly is an amazing book, Moody. It's
> implications seem quite un-Nietzschean, though (though also very
> Nietzschean---I'm confused).
> Aren't order of rank, patriarchy, etc. Apollinian? Methinks the
> feminine is closer to the infantile (women are traditionally dependent
> on men; they also resemble children more than men (high voice, smooth
> skin, less body hair, etc.)). Consider the Freudian term "genital
> organisation": is it not more Nietzschean to have an order of rank of
> the various body parts with the genital organs on top, rather than
> equality or anarchy among the body parts?