the hidden persuader

Isn't it wrong to transcend your superego?

NO. It is the only way to develop a foundation for authentic ethics -- which was really Nietzsche's point all along. His writing is simply not an injunction to descend into regressive immoralism (the most common contemporary interpretation of Nietzsche):


Wouldst thou go into isolation, my brother? Wouldst thou seek the way unto
thyself? Tarry yet a little and hearken unto me.
"He who seeketh may easily
get lost himself. All isolation is wrong": so say the herd. And long didst thou
belong to the herd.
The voice of the herd will still echo in thee. And when
thou sayest, "I have no longer a conscience in common with you," then will it be
a plaint and a pain.
Lo, that pain itself did the same conscience produce;
and the last gleam of that conscience still gloweth on thine affliction.But thou wouldst go the way of thine affliction, which is the way unto thyself? Then
show me thine authority and thy strength to do so!
Art thou a new strength
and a new authority? A first motion? A selfrolling wheel? Canst thou also compel
stars to revolve around thee?
Alas! there is so much lusting for loftiness!
There are so many convulsions of the ambitions! Show me that thou art not a
lusting and ambitious one!
Alas! there are so many great thoughts that do
nothing more than the bellows: they inflate, and make emptier than
ever.
Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and
not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from
a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his
servitude.
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly,
however, shall thine eye show unto me: free FOR WHAT?
Canst thou give unto
thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou
be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?
Terrible is aloneness with the
judge and avenger of one`s own law. Thus is a star projected into desert space,
and into the icy breath of aloneness.

Why is this initiation that changes the nature of one's conscience even necessary?

Most people think they are oriented towards ethics, but their concept of what is ethical has already been circumscribed by their relationship to power. So you get the strange rationalisations (that appear, not in words, but in terms of actions and behaviour) that it is ethical to condemn the scapegoat, because it affirms the existing order of power. This seems to be the problem with superego, in general, that it counsels "it is only moral to submit to power, and not to oppose it". But superego seems concerned then, with power (and not with ethics). It concerns itself with power, because it is concerned with self-preservation, and it interprets its relationship with power into a framework of ethics: "It is necessary to comply with authority, because it is good for me to survive."But this is no basis for thinking about ethics at all, and it is why it is necessary to mentally and emotionally acquiesce to death and to one's mortality if one is to establish a foundation for ethical thinking at all. A shaman is one who "faces death" and thus conquers his superego -- and in turn, conquers his blindness regarding the degree to which R-complex controls his mind. (For, R-Complex is also responsible for advising Superego concerning ethics, whenever the issue of personal survival seems to be at stake, even indirectly or symbolically).

Apart from a shamanistic approach to ethics, it seems very likely that R-complex will cause one's perspectives to be limited by unconscious determinations linked to personal survival. One's ethical positions will be severely compromised by ongoing interventions from R-Complex. Shamanic initiation makes visible that which was previously invisible however. It reveals to the mind the true nature of its internal hidden persuader.