could it be-

those who suffer the most

are witness to the most beautiful?

could they long more for beauty?

endeavour deeper into the arts?

-to alleviate themselves

in aesthetics and sensualities

-is this not the purpose of beauty ?

 

The very constraints that limit, designate, prohibit are the very forces that engender freedom through their restriction. Without the limits established there could be no passing them.

Freedom is achieved in the excess from a restraint; the forces that limit freedom are the very ones that freedom is born in.

Individuality is created by restraint; the individual realizing themselves is only available through them being pressured from external forces squeezing them into actualization.

Imagine : all this existence and time is the unrelenting activity of billions of people; the length of their lives and their actions are culminating and progressing history. They have sprung into existence in this current time and space and are enacting an energy that causes a progressional movement of activity which effects a greater causality.

We are plunged into this life, as a force, moving together in one direction, in a stream of time. there are many different forces coming in and out of the stream, but because there are more here than there are coming out the stream keeps flowing- time keeps going.

History is a stream of humanity; beings come in, take part of the activity then leave, and so on and so on

layer after layer (freeverse)

///////////tore the layers, 
//////////they go and go , 
/////////one after the next, 

////////cold is the wind and warm is your earth, 
///////you've left me no path, no place to rest,
//////taken it all, 
/////never knew you could hate like this
 
////a patch on this ground 
///-a skin disease 
//don't abandon me here
/at least tear this off too

The hidden Hegel within Nietzsche

The master-slave dialectic for Hegel is the driving force of history, its annulment is the end of history. The equalization of master-slave for Nietzsche brings with it a dissolving of their contradicting values (morality).

Is Nietzsche merely continuing the Hegelian necessity?

I think what Nietzsche foresaw that Hegel didn’t is that through destroying the dichotomies of master-slave; a transitionary period of nihilism would be initiated which leads into absolute spirit after its completion. Nihilism would create the fertile grounds for a revaluation of values, where the highest values devalue themselves and it is through this negation that new values can emerge. These values are part of an absolute morality (free from the contradictory values of master/slave) that is a constituent part of absolute spirit. I think Hegel was too preoccupied with the historical aspect of his system and Nietzsche picked it up on moral grounds where he expounded the moral implications of master/slave fading away.

This would be a Nietzschean objection: absolute morality is free from master/slave values but through creating new values it still perpetuates a moral system that is objective and not free for the individual; the difference of this morality compared with the old one is that it expels the dialectical opposition but still places objective moral principles that confine subjects in its morality.

I think that we have to accept, as social beings, the fundamental essence of morality is slavish; it unifies people and acts as an authority of value-positing for a ‘power’. It is a power structure you cannot rid a social group of because the social body is always comprised of power relations (a will to power); you can’t escape this element or else you go into moral-relativism which leads-again-into nihilism. The subjective morality Nietzsche advocates is a tumultuous transition of a process that gradually solidifies an objective morality. We can’t be morally subjective tenably; ‘will to power’ will always designate an object morality through a process of contradictions being resolved through time (subjective morality engenders the fecundity for antagonisms that reach a dialectical completion into a ‘universal’ morality). This newly completed morality will (possibly) never degrade into nihilism because it is not tensionally conflicting itself in a dialectic. I think Nietzsche’s greatest alluding task was creating the principles for which we could articulate and implement the process (unbeknownst to him) that fruitions this objective morality.

Nietzsche was a child of his times; a product of the historical milieu that manifested his individuality. He was a being in a specific point in history that found within his profound thought a kernel of an historical becoming. The thought he was trying to get away from (Hegelian Dialectics) was actually the very reality he was situated in. The events and philosophy that preceded him allowed him to elucidate what Hegel couldn’t: the coming of nihilism and the moralistic consequences that accompanied the end of the master/slave dialectic. Hegel had made the mistake of placing absolute spirit at the end of history; he could not foresee the moralistic implications and the turmoil that ‘the end’ would cause to ‘spirit’ from becoming absolute; spirit will have to go through an anguish of nihility, where it detaches itself from what constrained it, and then reconfigures itself in a process that will bring about its absolute completion. The thought of Nietzsche was able to continue Hegelian thought in a route that was not historically available for Hegel: this is why both thinkers should not be taken in conflicting terms; the alliance of their thought can be critically and genealogically used to unveil the hidden mechanisms of our society and reality.

 


Note: The Nietzschean “overman” is a bridge towards the Hegelian “absolute spirit”

Loneliness is not achievable in this modern age; only a fragment of it- 
 
the 21st century and advancement of technology has brought on many efficiencies

including:

making isolation bearable

-we are all just one glitch away from going completely mad

 

 

Fascism, Castration and Nietzsche

Fascism is a defensive ideology, its power is within fear: the fear of castration.

In Freudian psychoanalysis castration anxiety is a fear of emasculation and of losing the penis which is the very symbolizer of masculinity. In this case the penis symbolizes the ideological structures that compromise superiority, race, domination and heritage which are all structures that support fascism and are all rooted in the violent hyper-masculinity of fascist ideology.

Fascism finds its potency with a perceived threat; an outside force that wishes to destroy it. The threat propels the passions of hatred and ignites prejudice. The attack is towards a way of life and an established identity. The foreign intruder is perceived as wishing to destroy the establishment and dethrone (castrate) the ones who are in power. At all costs the fascists way of life must be preserved because it includes the very means of power that gives that life meaning and purpose. Fascism finds its meaning and purpose in dominance. The subjugation of all life for one ruling group is the sadistic purpose of all fascist ideology, and fascists will fight for this “right to power” because without it they are castrated and left with humiliation and loss.

There exists a position within some misinterpretations of Nietzschean thought that states fascism is a master morality, this is completely false, fascism is probably the highest form of slave morality that can exist. Fascism in appearance seems to be an affirmation but affirmation is not its source, the source is in fear. In religion, there exists a life-threatening fear of God, this fear stops man from what can affirm his life and enables him to thwart the life within him to achieve eternity in the afterlife. Fascism works similarly by replacing the threat of God with the threat of the outside world. Christianity seeks paradise in the afterlife, fascism seeks paradise within life in the form of a dominant utopian ethno-state. The way to reach this paradise is through violence and control which are part of weak and life-limiting forces.

The Nietzschean ‘will to power’ is a becoming of power in the form of a will. The becoming is between two forces, reactive (negating) and active (affirmative), the one that rules over the other has the highest will to power. The qualities of weak and strong does not determine the strong (active) force prevailing over the weaker (reactive) one, what matters for the success of the forces is the power of the will.

The difference between active and reactive forces can be elucidated with the ‘eternal return’: if you will something, will it as if it would return in life eternally. Active forces always make a successful return because they bring with them life-affirmation while reactive ones die because they eventually destroy themselves.

Fascism is a reactive force because it cuts life off from what it can do (active forces affirm life to its full potential). The fascists are not just dominating everyone else, their ideology is also dominating them. In this way fascism becomes sadomasochistic, the members extend control towards others and their values extend control towards themselves. The worship of ideological principles constrain members to a mould that they can’t escape from. They are in a cycle of domination and submission. The bondage of fascism limits the life-potential of its members by subjugating them to ideals and convictions that negate life-affirming wills for a will that is contrived through the power of fear.

Fascism is wholly a negation, its power is in destruction, it has no positivity which life-affirmative creation can come from because it is a philosophy of death that creates perpetual tension and violence. Fascism replaces the slave morality of Christianity for a new one that is not (entirely) based on the worship of a God but the worship of land, race and history that completely dominate an individuals life and fixates it on abstractions that manifest ideological slavery. The property of Fascism then becomes the violent residue of the worst aspects of a slave morality and the worst aspects of mankind as a whole.

Norman Bates and his Mother

Psycho is a fascinating film that explores the inner-workings of a mental illness pertaining to a man whose sense of self is dominated by a mother figure. His mother had died long ago but the ‘ghost’ of her remained within Norman. He compensated for this death by going into episodes where he would take on her role. The role was a defensive mechanism towards what Norman felt as a threat towards himself through the perspective of an over-protective simulacrum of his mother.

At the end of Psycho 2, we find the truth. Normans real mother appears and we learn his dead mother was actually the real ones sister. Norman, showing no sign of distress and operating with an erie calm, strikes his real mother in the head with a shovel after she reveals the truth. Why would Norman kill his actual mother when, for what it seemed, he so desperately needed a mother figure in his life? This end scene provides a startling revelation.

For Norman, it was never about the reality of the mother, it was always about the fantasy. The mother signified the highest authority figure, who would look after and give orders to an insecure and scared little boy. The outside world was taught to be impure and dangerous by the mother figure, this led Norman to live a reclusive life that depended on the mother for safety. After her death, through the years, living alone in the house his mother once occupied, Norman created the perfect mother figure, the perfect bringer of peace and order in a world of chaos and evil. This imaginary mother figure engendered by the death of his former mother was the culmination of all that Norman desired in a paternal figure. The appearance of a living mother that would replace this imaginary matriarch is a stoppage of the fantasy.

Fantasy dissolves when coming face to face with reality, it no longer works because fantasy finds life within a realm of death (a void) where the virtuality of imagination is free to set itself up whatever it can possibly desire, unconstrained by any shortcoming of actual reality. The real mother that presented herself to Norman had to be killed and from her body and the actuality of her death; Norman found the sustenance to perpetuate the virtuality of fantasy. The mother lives on but only through death. She lives on in the all-encompassing spirit of Normans most primary desires. It was never about a mother, it was what a mother signified and the signification was suited so perfectly for him that he wouldn’t let the real sully it.