And One After Another They Fall | Clarissa's Blog
I find it interesting that the writer in the link above (whom Clarissa takes to task for a lapse into sexism) defines narcissism by virtue of its being against change. That is a very interesting and useful definition. One could keep that definition and at times accept a relatively less pathological view of narcissism than is the norm. For there are many people who have experienced too much change of a useless sort -- change for its own sake -- and who no longer trust anything, because the changes they've experienced have happened too fast. If one understands capitalism to be perpetual revolution, then no doubt many who live in its hub are shell-shocked by it. Hence they are narcissists by dint of material and historical circumstances. They're trying to protect themselves, but the only options available are dangerous and/or pathological. Such is USA, in large part, and Australia, too.
Intellectual shamanism of course pursues the possibility of change, to uncover intellectual wealth. That's why it's necessarily non-narcissistic, and why you won't be able to pursue this path, or even begin to understand it, if you have a lot of narcissism in you. That would load you down, not to mention blind you.
If you don't have anything inside you -- which is what narcissism means -- then you will not want to move a muscle, nor take any risk. It would be better to be stuck with one's illusions and an environment that is at any rate familiar to one, than to risk total, physical annihilation. Growth is inner change.
George Bataille appeals to people to encounter such annihilation or in other words, to face up to nothingness. I realize this could be a double-edged sword. On the one hand this means "facing death", which is fundamentally the death of the narcissistic self and one's pathological tendency to choose safety over risk. On the other hand, "facing death" would also appeal to people's death instinct -- what Freud called Thanatos. Bataille's form of shamanism makes its appeal to the desire for destruction.
In using his set of terms, Bataille is not being naïve or random. Bataille reads Hegel and Nietzsche -- and he reads Hegel through Marx and Nietzsche. Nietzsche said that Hegel's concept of God was nothing, because it was the reduction of the physical into pure idea. Consequently, when one embarks on a religious journey, one is, in effect, seeking "nothing". Nietzsche also said that when one is miserable one seeks excess and not moderation. One of Bataille's main motifs is "excess", which he deems to be necessitated by the unhappiness that results from meaningless forms of wage slavery. Thus, he invokes Thanatos (destruction) through his appeal that one should not remain in moderation, but should go into behavioral modes of excess.
My interpretation of all this -- and it may not be Bataille's -- is that for some people going into excess may be self-destructive, but for others it may be redemptive. I guess it would be down to what kind of person you are, whether this trial by fire ends up stripping you of your non-productive narcissism, or ends up simply destroying you entirely so that you meet your God and become "nothing". Of course, this also applies to women and sexuality. Who you are to begin with might be the most determining factor as to outcome, should one experiment with sexuality in one's youth. Notably, Bataille also invokes the idea of Icarus, so one's skill in flying -- but not too close to danger -- may be another determining factor as to whether one gains or loses strength.
I find it interesting that the writer in the link above (whom Clarissa takes to task for a lapse into sexism) defines narcissism by virtue of its being against change. That is a very interesting and useful definition. One could keep that definition and at times accept a relatively less pathological view of narcissism than is the norm. For there are many people who have experienced too much change of a useless sort -- change for its own sake -- and who no longer trust anything, because the changes they've experienced have happened too fast. If one understands capitalism to be perpetual revolution, then no doubt many who live in its hub are shell-shocked by it. Hence they are narcissists by dint of material and historical circumstances. They're trying to protect themselves, but the only options available are dangerous and/or pathological. Such is USA, in large part, and Australia, too.
Intellectual shamanism of course pursues the possibility of change, to uncover intellectual wealth. That's why it's necessarily non-narcissistic, and why you won't be able to pursue this path, or even begin to understand it, if you have a lot of narcissism in you. That would load you down, not to mention blind you.
If you don't have anything inside you -- which is what narcissism means -- then you will not want to move a muscle, nor take any risk. It would be better to be stuck with one's illusions and an environment that is at any rate familiar to one, than to risk total, physical annihilation. Growth is inner change.
George Bataille appeals to people to encounter such annihilation or in other words, to face up to nothingness. I realize this could be a double-edged sword. On the one hand this means "facing death", which is fundamentally the death of the narcissistic self and one's pathological tendency to choose safety over risk. On the other hand, "facing death" would also appeal to people's death instinct -- what Freud called Thanatos. Bataille's form of shamanism makes its appeal to the desire for destruction.
In using his set of terms, Bataille is not being naïve or random. Bataille reads Hegel and Nietzsche -- and he reads Hegel through Marx and Nietzsche. Nietzsche said that Hegel's concept of God was nothing, because it was the reduction of the physical into pure idea. Consequently, when one embarks on a religious journey, one is, in effect, seeking "nothing". Nietzsche also said that when one is miserable one seeks excess and not moderation. One of Bataille's main motifs is "excess", which he deems to be necessitated by the unhappiness that results from meaningless forms of wage slavery. Thus, he invokes Thanatos (destruction) through his appeal that one should not remain in moderation, but should go into behavioral modes of excess.
My interpretation of all this -- and it may not be Bataille's -- is that for some people going into excess may be self-destructive, but for others it may be redemptive. I guess it would be down to what kind of person you are, whether this trial by fire ends up stripping you of your non-productive narcissism, or ends up simply destroying you entirely so that you meet your God and become "nothing". Of course, this also applies to women and sexuality. Who you are to begin with might be the most determining factor as to outcome, should one experiment with sexuality in one's youth. Notably, Bataille also invokes the idea of Icarus, so one's skill in flying -- but not too close to danger -- may be another determining factor as to whether one gains or loses strength.
Oh my brothers, am I perhaps cruel? But I say: if something is falling,one should also give it a push!
Everything of today – it is falling, it is failing: who would want to stopit! But I – I want to push it too!
Do you know the kind of lust that rolls stones down into steep depths?
– These people of today; just look at how they roll into my depths!
I am a prelude of better players, my brothers! An exemplary play! Act
according to my example!
And whomever you cannot teach to fly, him you should teach – to fall
faster! (FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE,Thus Spoke Zarathustra, p 168, emphasis mine)
No comments:
Post a Comment