Thursday, May 21, 2015

Love As Unconscious Will To Method

Zarathustra proclaimed, ‘There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness’.

Love is over and above method, yet love is madness—which is method.

(As Chesterton put it, ‘The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason’.) 

The will to method surpasses itself through love, thus unconsciously becoming itself.

The reason is ideology always comes ‘first’—everything follows.

God is unconscious.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

The Redoubling of Ressentiment—Bad Conscience, Revenge and the Spirit of Gravity

What value is a justice if it be birthed in the swamp?

Apart from much croaking and cackling one hears subversive sermonizing as nothing more than a poisonous swill that nourishes the sermonizers appetite for revenge, for above all it seeks to condemn its perceived opposite because it has found itself guilty and is seeking to assuage its own deep-rooted self-contempt. It is here that the bad conscience no longer follows ressentiment, but rather the opposite—a redoubled ressentiment that is the result of the bad conscience. It finds fault in itself and thereby seeks to crucify its neighbor, for upon finding itself guilty it looks for an other to punish for its (lack of) bad conscience. In this way the subverter begins from the negative and only thereafter arrives at the good . . .

It feels bad, and names all that flows from its bad conscience ‘good’.

It calls its hatred ‘brotherly love’.

It seeks not mountaintops, but rather the leveling of all things.

The spirit of gravity forces it downward, and downward further—it no longer chooses, but rather is ‘chosen’ by a supersensible world (or metaphysic) that e’er oppresses it—this it calls justice. Yet despisers, despisers-of-despisers, and despisers-of-self—hardly even a parallax!—are nihilists all. Therefore what has hitherto been determined antithetical in these despisers, one from the next, is in fact not antithetical, for one must not only move beyond despising an other (to no longer despising an other), but also beyond despising the despisers, as such is always-already the third: the despiser-of-self, as is the former.

And it is here that I return to my original question—what good is it to condemn the prejudiced, the xenophobe, or the fascist if one speaks as a frog, a pig, or a tarantula?

Verily, the impulse to punish is poison.

Thus have I unlearned to bite. 

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

A Thought on the Midterm Elections

What can be said of a political party when a candidate airs ads promoting she voted against her party on a ‘violence against women’ act? 

Sunday, March 23, 2014

The Hearing Paradox

While it is true that the beautiful soul exists, I find many of the attacks against public (i.e. known) contrarians—genuine or otherwise—to be some version of the following . . .

“We will listen to you, just as soon as we can no longer hear you.”

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

We Are (Not) All Experts

People are equal—opinions are not. This is a truth democracy apologists ignore often. While it is true that there is no individual in a ‘meta-position’ who can proffer the rest of us an absolute solution, the problem is that a disavowal of any ‘higher view’ functions as its opposite, that is—a leveling of the playing field of opinions makes the herd (uninformed) ‘experts’ participating in a feedback loop which reinforces the ruling ideology.

We see this play out in real time everyday—climate change is a good example here. Climate scientists are disparaged so that ‘news’ personalities, politicians and others (who know nothing of climate science) can imbue their viewers, constituencies, etc. with anti-science propaganda. For if professionals in a given field ‘don’t know anything’ about that particular field (or at minimum can’t be trusted), the result is not that we all ‘don’t know anything’ (about said field), but much more radically: we all know everything (about said field)—not in ‘reality’ of course, but in function, i.e. when all opinions are equal, all opinions are thus equally legitimate.

To be certain, I am not arguing for a universal acceptance of every argument from authority, but rather against the false argument from (the) authority of the herd, simply because—the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. {Marx/Engels] 

In other words, the opinions of the herd are the opinions of the powers that be

Authority is ‘challenged’ not to challenge power, but to reinforce a power greater than what is being challenged. Power, under the guise of ‘democracy’, demands we seek the opinions of all so that in the end we are stuck with the ruling ideology, and thus the status quo. (This is precisely how real equality, i.e. the Idea of radical justice, gets mocked as horribly ‘undemocratic’.)

Paradoxically, a level playing field of opinions is intrinsically hierarchic.