My critique of contemporary ietzscheanism' is largely based upon a single psychological principle. It is as simple as this, that one is mistaken to assume that one can become any different from what one is merely by reading a book and learning that individualism and will to power have merit.
If you try to represent those things, instead of coming closer to approximating them, you actually remove yourself at least a large step away. This pertains to the principle of imitation and how it removes you from your actual self. Most contemporary Nietzscheans try to bring their worst impulses to the surface and baptise them as their best ones. Now, this might sound like this Nietzschean principle at first:
But, the way most people apply it, there is no radical transformation involved only a devolution. Above all, there is no attempt at integration of the powerful forces we would otherwise project onto others.
Devolving to a level where you express yourself in terms of your worst possible aspects in neither clever, courageous, nor particularly related to Nietzsche. The point is that one remains an "actor of the spirit" -- somebody who has decided to imitate an image that they find in a book -- only now, one is replete with a vulgar and repulsive coating.
How does one, therefore, get beyond being the victim of a book, so that one may gain anything from Nietzsche's philosophy at all? (And what, by the way, does he mean by "evil"?) This, of course, relates not to a relabeling and remarketing process -- whereby your disgusting wares are now given the title of "rose perfume". No. Rather the epigram refers to a radical rearrangement of the very structure of your soul, thus that you no longer repress certain of your drives, out of fear of them, but learn to utilise them in radical and practical ways, towards goals that you have set.
This inwards rearranging of forces could actually be quite subtle, and by no means needs to involve forcing others to meet what is most repulsive about you -- your misogyny, for instance. But we are referring here to inwards self-transformation -- of the sort that would lead you away from being a mere "actor of the spirit" to being one who participates in the realm of the spirit. (A radical self-transformation is required even as a prerequisite for being able to see the second possibility of direct participation. Otherwise, one stays entirely on the surface.)
Consider the question of individualism. It should not even be necessary to point it out -- one does not become an individual by imitating anything that is in a book. An authoritarian, who takes guidance from what he believes he understands about a text, is not an individual. He is an authoritarian, who bumbles along, often trying to correct others (indeed, by expressing his most repulsive aspects according to his level of understanding of Nietzsche's mystic "formula"-- interpreted as an occult recipe that facilitates a grab for power.)
But how does an authoritarian become an individual? Another way of saying this is "how does one rebaptise the "evil" in one, as the good?" It's not by an extremist gesture of putting it all on the line and grabbing for power. Rather, this involves a process of acknowledging that what one has repressed, in order to conform with others expectations, is not actually the evil within one that one had imagined it to be. It was just repressed psychological energy -- energy that, by virtue of being repressed, began to stink. But now, one is restoring that energy to a different place, in a different part of one's psyche. One has found a way to use it to one's benefit. Thereby, what was once practically evil becomes practically good.
My reading departs from the norm in that it understands that Nietzsche's philosophy is concerned with practical transformations of an intra-subjective nature. It avoids the idea (and its aesthetically unadmirable consequences!) of the most common notion -- that Nietzsche's writing is a formula that teaches you how to lord it over others.
It's time for a shamanic re-reading of Nietzsche.
If you try to represent those things, instead of coming closer to approximating them, you actually remove yourself at least a large step away. This pertains to the principle of imitation and how it removes you from your actual self. Most contemporary Nietzscheans try to bring their worst impulses to the surface and baptise them as their best ones. Now, this might sound like this Nietzschean principle at first:
116. The great epochs of our life are at the points when we gain courage to rebaptize our badness as the best in us. [4. Apophthegms and Interludes, Beyond Good and Evil].
But, the way most people apply it, there is no radical transformation involved only a devolution. Above all, there is no attempt at integration of the powerful forces we would otherwise project onto others.
Devolving to a level where you express yourself in terms of your worst possible aspects in neither clever, courageous, nor particularly related to Nietzsche. The point is that one remains an "actor of the spirit" -- somebody who has decided to imitate an image that they find in a book -- only now, one is replete with a vulgar and repulsive coating.
How does one, therefore, get beyond being the victim of a book, so that one may gain anything from Nietzsche's philosophy at all? (And what, by the way, does he mean by "evil"?) This, of course, relates not to a relabeling and remarketing process -- whereby your disgusting wares are now given the title of "rose perfume". No. Rather the epigram refers to a radical rearrangement of the very structure of your soul, thus that you no longer repress certain of your drives, out of fear of them, but learn to utilise them in radical and practical ways, towards goals that you have set.
This inwards rearranging of forces could actually be quite subtle, and by no means needs to involve forcing others to meet what is most repulsive about you -- your misogyny, for instance. But we are referring here to inwards self-transformation -- of the sort that would lead you away from being a mere "actor of the spirit" to being one who participates in the realm of the spirit. (A radical self-transformation is required even as a prerequisite for being able to see the second possibility of direct participation. Otherwise, one stays entirely on the surface.)
Consider the question of individualism. It should not even be necessary to point it out -- one does not become an individual by imitating anything that is in a book. An authoritarian, who takes guidance from what he believes he understands about a text, is not an individual. He is an authoritarian, who bumbles along, often trying to correct others (indeed, by expressing his most repulsive aspects according to his level of understanding of Nietzsche's mystic "formula"-- interpreted as an occult recipe that facilitates a grab for power.)
But how does an authoritarian become an individual? Another way of saying this is "how does one rebaptise the "evil" in one, as the good?" It's not by an extremist gesture of putting it all on the line and grabbing for power. Rather, this involves a process of acknowledging that what one has repressed, in order to conform with others expectations, is not actually the evil within one that one had imagined it to be. It was just repressed psychological energy -- energy that, by virtue of being repressed, began to stink. But now, one is restoring that energy to a different place, in a different part of one's psyche. One has found a way to use it to one's benefit. Thereby, what was once practically evil becomes practically good.
My reading departs from the norm in that it understands that Nietzsche's philosophy is concerned with practical transformations of an intra-subjective nature. It avoids the idea (and its aesthetically unadmirable consequences!) of the most common notion -- that Nietzsche's writing is a formula that teaches you how to lord it over others.
It's time for a shamanic re-reading of Nietzsche.
No comments:
Post a Comment