Friday, February 12, 2016

To Recognize Untruth as a Condition of Life

Suppose truth is not the aim of life.  Imagine, all along great minds and intellects have been searching frantically for truth, looking in every nook and cranny of the world to uncover truth.  It always seems to be slippery; when we finally grasp what we think is truth, it slips out of our hands and scurries off.  Isn't life all but a frantic search for truth? 

But why?  Why do we desire truth?  What makes truth so special to us?  Why not untruth? Why not uncertainty?  Why not even ignorance as the aim of mankind?  What exactly is truth?  If truth is something that is simply true because it is in accordance with reality or facts, is not everything we see, hear, feel, and smell truth by this very definition of the term truth?  Is not everything truth, even falseness and untruth?  Are not our own value judgments, prejudices, and words in the way?

What then appears to be opposites, truth and untruth, become one in the same. Contradictory terms become non-contradictory.  Truth is untruth, selflessness is selfishness, and love is hate.  Perhaps even what the meta-physicians deem the value of truth in their dogma is based in, tied to, and wholly related to wicked, evil, and what may seem to be opposite phenomena.  Then, a condition of our life would be to recognize reality; that untruth is a condition of life itself and, as another example, hate is a condition of life itself. Perhaps even hate is the essence of life and untruth is the essence of life?  Then, isn't the search for reality itself the aim of life and not the search for truth?  Are we not searching for what is actually right there in front of us and not hiding?

The following is an excerpt from Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886) by Friedrich Nietzsche and translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann (Part One; "On the Prejudices of Philosophers"):


The falseness of a judgment is for us not necessarily an objection to a judgment; in this respect our new language may sound strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-promoting, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating. And we are fundamentally inclined to claim that the falsest judgments (which include the synthetic judgments a priori*) are the most indispensable for us; that without accepting the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that renouncing false judgments would mean renouncing life and a denial of life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life—that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil.

independent of all particular experiences; "from the earlier"

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Degenerate Modern Man

The world and its human inhabitants seem to be moving faster, without much friction or obstacle, towards a degenerate form of human.  In some cases, this degenerate form of human has already arrived (witness the politicians running for president and the mass media reporting on them).  I do not need to look any further to find gruesome degenerates than on the mainstream news outlets (the degenerates here are both the so-called 'journalists' and the politicians they so love).

The degeneration of mankind was once the ideal "man of the future" but now it is the "man of the present" or the "man of today".  He is the perfect herd animal, the socialist with a grand conscience, with a herd-like Christian-American morality, believing with all his heart in the greatest good for the greatest number.  He is equal to everyone else, expresses much pity toward his fellow man, and moves along in the herd as a colorless, formless dolt.  He is wretched and stupid and easily deceived by anyone that presents themselves to him.  He is a mental dwarf (a mental midget) that moves about in a so-called 'free society' as a decayed, mediocre, valueless individual idiot.  He is a plebian slave eating his cake and watching his TV programs and running out to vote for his favorite political personality.

What can be "made of man", the modern degenerate aforementioned man?  My nausea lies with the state of human beings of today as exemplified in totality in the dreadful politicians and those that support them.  We do need a revaluation of all morals, new values, opposite values, and a new task (a new aim).   A task that will turn our current political organization, our human decay, our human mediocrity on its head...a revaluation and inversion of all values and all morals is needed is the only way to stop the degenerate modern man.

The following is an excerpt from Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886) by Friedrich Nietzsche and translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann (Part Five; "Natural History of Morals"):


We have a different faith; to us the democratic movement is not only a form of the decay of political organization but a form of the decay, namely the diminution, of man, making him mediocre and lowering his value. Where, then, must we reach with our hopes? 

Toward new philosophers; there is no choice; toward spirits strong and original enough to provide the stimuli for opposite valuations and to revalue and invert “eternal values;” toward forerunners, toward men of the future who in the present tie the knot and constraint that forces the will of millennia upon new tracks. To teach man the future of man as his will, as dependent on a human will, and to prepare great ventures and over-all attempts of discipline and cultivation by way of putting an end to that gruesome dominion of nonsense and accident that has so far been called “history”—the nonsense of the “greatest number” is merely its ultimate form: at some time new types of philosophers and commanders will be necessary for that, and whatever has existed on earth of concealed, terrible, and benevolent spirits, will look pale and dwarfed by comparison. It is the image of such leaders that we envisage: may I say this out loud, you free spirits? The conditions that one would have partly to create and partly to exploit for their genesis; the probable ways and tests that would enable a soul to grow to such a height and force that it would feel the compulsion for such tasks; a revaluation of values under whose new pressure and hammer a conscience would be steeled, a heart turned to bronze, in order to endure the weight of such responsibility; on the other hand, the necessity of such leaders, the frightening danger that they might fail to appear or that they might turn out badly or degenerate—these are our real worries and gloom—do you know that, you free spirits?—these are the heavy distant thoughts and storms that pass over the sky of our life.

There are few pains as sore as once having seen, guessed, felt how an extraordinary human being strayed from his path and degenerated. But anyone who has the rare eye for the over-all danger that “man” himself degenerates; anyone who, like us, has recognized the monstrous fortuity that has so far had its way and play regarding the future of man—a game in which no hand, and not even a finger, of God took part as a player; anyone who fathoms the calamity that lies concealed in the absurd guilelessness and blind confidence of “modern ideas” and even more in the whole Christian-European morality—suffers from an anxiety that is past all comparisons. With a single glance he sees what, given a favorable accumulation and increase of forces and tasks, might yet be made of man; he knows with all the knowledge of his conscience how man is still unexhausted for the greatest possibilities and how often the type “man” has already confronted enigmatic decisions and new paths—he knows still better from his most painful memories what wretched things have so far usually broken a being of the highest rank that was in the process of becoming, so that it broke, sank, and became contemptible. 

The over-all degeneration of man down to what today appears to the socialist dolts and flatheads as their “man of the future”—as their ideal—this degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal (or, as they say, to the man of the “free society”), this animalization of man into the dwarf animal of equal rights and claims, is possible, there is no doubt of it. Anyone who has once thought through this possibility to the end knows one kind of nausea that other men don’t know—but perhaps also a new task!

Monday, February 8, 2016

Christianity In Practice

Democracy is just an extension of Christian morals, and like Christianity itself, it is a farce and charade and based upon nothing.  I am especially speaking of American democracy, which is, by and large, herd animal morality put into place by the herd animal for the oppression of the individual.  What I find most laughable and appalling are the conceited masses knowing what is good and evil for all of man....and then they say a little prayer before bed and sleep well because of this "knowledge" of good and evil.

But one knows nothing at all, especially that of good and evil.  The herd animal praises itself for this unsupported knowledge and reproaches anyone who disagrees with its false premises.  It is thrust upon us by way of the all-too-many, by a count and sum of Yes's and No's, by way of American democracy.  The herd animal in America is becoming more forceful in its pronunciations of the "common good" with these socialist and communist politicians dominating the political circus (there are many); certainly it has attained a clear prevalence and predominance over individual instincts in the democracy participants (i.e. voters).  

Morality in America today is the herd animal morality of the utilitarians, the "greater good" for as many as possible (as little "evil" as possible).  Yet these utilitarians know nothing of good or evil, let alone the greater good or the greater evil.  Again, one must have knowledge of what is good and evil (in actuality) before one can pronounce one good greater than another or one evil worse than another.  If the foundation is lacking, if one does not know what good and evil is, the whole contraption collapses.  Isn't the American democracy contraption collapsing?  Has it collapsed already?  

American democracy is the heir to the throne of Christianity.  With religion, the herd animal dominates political and social events by bringing Christian beliefs to the forefront with the democratic vote.  Socialism and Communism are just Christianity put into practice. Whether it is put into practice by a tyrant or by a vote of the all-too-many matters not.  The result is the same...legalized Christianity for the all-too-many...the autonomous herd creating a "free society" where everyone and no one are special (equality for all, mediocrity for all).  

American democracy becomes the new 'religion of pity' in this democratic age, morphing into socialism and communism and brotherly love and greater good and extreme selflessness (a complete disregard for the self).  A shared pity among Americans takes hold via democracy, with the community and the herd becoming the new savior of mankind replacing the man on the cross.  A new faith of community and collectivism elects a government that aims at the salvation of man's sins against god as the new savior of man.

But, alas, we still do not have any knowledge of what good and evil are....I maintain there is no good or evil...

The following is an excerpt from Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886) by Friedrich Nietzsche and translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann (Part Five; "Natural History of Morals"):


Let us immediately say once more what we have already said a hundred times, for today’s ears resist such truths—our truths. We know well enough how insulting it sounds when anybody counts man, unadorned and without metaphor, among the animals; but it will be charged against us as almost a guilt that precisely for the men of “modern ideas” we constantly employ such expressions as “herd,” “herd instincts,” and so forth. What can be done about it? We cannot do anything else; for here exactly lies our novel insight. We have found that in all major moral judgments Europe is now of one mind, including even the countries dominated by the influence of Europe: plainly, one now knows in Europe what Socrates thought he did not know and what that famous old serpent once promised to teach—today one “knows” what is good and evil.

Now it must sound harsh and cannot be heard easily when we keep insisting: that which here believes it knows, that which here glorifies itself with its praises and reproaches, calling itself good, that is the instinct of the herd animal, man, which has scored a breakthrough and attained prevalence and predominance over other instincts—and this development is continuing in accordance with the growing physiological approximation and assimilation of which it is the symptom. Morality in Europe today is herd animal morality—in other words, as we understand it, merely one type of human morality beside which, before which, and after which many other types, above all higher moralities, are, or ought to be, possible. But this morality resists such a “possibility,” such an “ought” with all its power: it says stubbornly and inexorably, “I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality.” Indeed, with the help of a religion which indulged and flattered the most sublime herd-animal desires, we have reached the point where we find even in political and social institutions an ever more visible expression of this morality: the democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement.

But there are indications that its tempo is still much too slow and sleepy for the more impatient, for the sick, the sufferers of the instinct mentioned: witness the ever madder howling of the anarchist dogs who are baring their fangs more and more obviously and roam through the alleys of European culture. They seem opposites of the peacefully industrious democrats and ideologists of revolution, and even more so of the doltish philosophasters and brotherhood enthusiasts who call themselves socialists and want a “free society;” but in fact they are at one with the lot in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every other form of society except that of the autonomous herd (even to the point of repudiating the very concepts of “master” and “servant”—ni dieu ni maître* runs a socialist formula). They are at one in their tough resistance to every special claim, every special right and privilege (which means in the last analysis, every right: for once all are equal nobody needs “rights” any more). They are at one in their mistrust of punitive justice (as if it were a violation of those who are weaker, a wrong against the necessary consequence of all previous society). But they are also at one in the religion of pity, in feeling with all who feel, live, and suffer (down to the animal, up to “God”—the excess of a “pity with God” belongs in a democratic age). They are at one, the lot of them, in the cry and the impatience of pity, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine inability to remain spectators, to let someone suffer. They are at one in their involuntary plunge into gloom and unmanly tenderness under whose spell Europe seems threatened by a new Buddhism. They are at one in their faith in the morality of shared pity, as if that were morality in itself, being the height, the attained height of man, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of present man, the great absolution from all former guilt. They are at one, the lot of them, in their faith in the community as the savior, in short, in the herd, in “themselves”—

* "Neither god nor master"

Friday, February 5, 2016

Freedom From Fear

Two phenomena drive most of my behavior:  Fear and Power.  Fear is a powerful phenomenon which motivates my self-preservation, i.e. preserving my existence.  I want to exist and I do not want to be harmed by some other phenomena.  Thus, my power is used to overcome the fear (or eliminate the phenomenon causing me fear; real or imagined).  This is what happens with me, the individual.  I cannot speak for you since I am not you.  

The same can be said of the herd community who are also collectively driven by fear and power.  When fear and power concerns the herd animal, they (collectively) demand "freedom from fear".  The community is in danger and the community's preservation must be protected (i.e. preserving collective existence).  Fear enters the herd community when the survival of the community is challenged.  The herd animal only knows collective power and strength in numbers (they long ago abandoned their individual power), and then the herd animal collectively seeks to create an entity to protect them collectively. Thus, they create governance.  Enter government and the state created to guarantee the herd freedom from fear by way of governmental power (law, order, and punishment).  Governmental power is now the proxy of individual power eternally seeking Utopia (safety) via legislation.

In our American democracy, governments are elected to guarantee the community freedom from fear and to establish good and evil (lawful and unlawful) for the herd animal. Punishments are created for the unlawful (the evil) and good is incentivized with reward for being lawful.  Democracy elects the people to make good and evil distinctions for the whole community.  In this regard, democracy is simply the collective power of the herd to overcome or eliminate fear in the community.  The state becomes the arbiter of 'morals' (i.e. good and evil) and is the proxy power substituted for the individual's power.  Good and evil for the "many" versus the good and evil for the individual.  The herd overshadows the individual resulting in "equality", mediocrity, and conformity (i.e. the common good).  When the state fails to establish good and evil adequately, the Church steps in with their pronouncements of eternal punishment (for the evil) or eternal bliss (for the good) to keep law, order, equality, mediocrity, and conformity in the herd community (for the herd animals).  This is the essence of the Church and State relationship.  The Church and State exist solely for the common good but in no way exist for me, the individual.  Church and State are my antithesis and I never agreed to allow the Church or State to speak for me or act as my proxy.

But isn't all this 'good and evil' talk entirely 'arbitrary and capricious' to state it like a modern lawyer? Isn't it just illusion and maybe even complete delusion to believe in morality?  Did you really expect American democracy, the state, and Church to rid you of fear by substituting your individual power for their collective power for that never-attainable Utopia (safety)?  

Fear is the mother of all morals:  fear of punishment, fear of eternal damnation in hell, and fear for what my neighbor may judge of me.  

Morality is all grounded in one phenomenon:  fear.  I can speak of nothing else here and now must pass over it in silence.

The following is an excerpt from Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886) by Friedrich Nietzsche and translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann (Part Five; "Natural History of Morals"):


As long as the utility reigning in moral value judgments is solely the utility of the herd, as long as one considers only the preservation of the community, and immorality is sought exactly and exclusively in what seems dangerous to the survival of the community—there can be no morality of “neighbor love.” Supposing that even then there was a constant little exercise of consideration-pity, fairness, mildness, reciprocity of assistance; supposing that even in that state of society all those drives are active that later receive the honorary designation of “virtues” and eventually almost coincide with the concept of “morality”—in that period they do not yet at all belong in the realm of moral valuations; they are still extra-moral. An act of pity, for example, was not considered either good or bad, moral or immoral, in the best period of the Romans; and even when it was praised, such praise was perfectly compatible with a kind of disgruntled disdain as soon as it was juxtaposed with an action that served the welfare of the whole, of the res publica*.

In the last analysis, “love of the neighbor” is always something secondary, partly conventional and arbitrary-illusory in relation to fear of the neighbor. After the structure of society is fixed on the whole and seems secure against external dangers, it is this fear of the neighbor that again creates new perspectives of moral valuation. Certain strong and dangerous drives, like an enterprising spirit, foolhardiness, vengefulness, craftiness, rapacity, and the lust to rule, which had so far not merely been honored insofar as they were socially useful—under different names, to be sure, from those chosen here—but had to be trained and cultivated to make them great (because one constantly needed them in view of the dangers to the whole community, against the enemies of the community), are now experienced as doubly dangerous, since the channels to divert them are lacking, and, step upon step, they are branded as immoral and abandoned to slander. 

Now the opposite drives and inclinations receive moral honors; step upon step, the herd instinct draws its conclusions. How much or how little is dangerous to the community, dangerous to equality, in an opinion, in a state or affect, in a will, in a talent—that now constitutes the moral perspective: here, too, fear is again the mother of morals.

The highest and strongest drives, when they break out passionately and drive the individual far above the average and the flats of the herd conscience, wreck the self-confidence of the community, its faith in itself, and it is as if its spine snapped. Hence just these drives are branded and slandered most. High and independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even a powerful reason are experienced as dangers; everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and the fair, modest, submissive, conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors. Eventually, under very peaceful conditions, the opportunity and necessity for educating one’s feelings to severity and hardness is lacking more and more; and every severity, even in justice, begins to disturb the conscience; any high and hard nobility and self-reliance is almost felt to be an insult and arouses mistrust; the “lamb,” even more the “sheep,” gains in respect.

There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining “punishment” and “being supposed to punish” hurts it, arouses fear in it. “Is it not enough to render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible.” With this question, herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its ultimate consequence. Supposing that one could altogether abolish danger, the reason for fear, this morality would be abolished, too, eo ipso: it would no longer be needed, it would no longer consider itself necessary.

Whoever examines the conscience of the European today will have to pull the same imperative out of a thousand moral folds and hideouts—the imperative of herd timidity: “we want that some day there should be nothing any more to be afraid of!” Some day—throughout Europe, the will and way to this day is now called “progress.”

* Commonwealth

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

What Preserves the Species

What has been called evil perhaps is beneficial, perhaps even indispensable to human existence.  Evil urges preserve human existence (at least temporarily) and serve to strengthen one's will and passions.  

For example, the strong sex drive in both males and females is called "evil" by Christianity and many other "moral" religions.  Yet sexual passion is will to procreation, will to life, will to passion, and ultimately will to power.  This "evil urge" is necessary and natural and serves to both create and preserve human existence.  Sexual intercourse and its affiliates of sexual passion were an old boundary stone set by pious Christians and dogmatists, a stone that must be dislodged from the minds of mankind. Leave it to the moralists to kindle a bad conscience with natural urges of the sexual kind.

Other examples include the 'evilness' of selfishness, hate, and the strong desire to rule over others.  While these human drives have been maligned by moralists of all religious persuasions, all have been demonstrated throughout history to advance individuals and humanity. All are natural urges and drives (similar to sex) which serve to preserve and elevate human existence.  Thus the 'evilness' of sex, selfishness, hate, and ruling over others are no longer 'evil', instead, they are beneficial, indispensable, and essential to the preservation of the human species.

Honestly, those that ignore the old boundaries of pious religions and moralities have, indeed, advanced humanity the most (historically speaking).  We must recognize that what was called "evil" by the metaphysicians may be essential to humanity's existence and the advancement of the human species.

A country like America is now so ordered and so regulated and so legislated that American passion is going to sleep.  It is a deep sleepy slumber of millions of automatons waking, eating, working, earning, and sleeping.  Anything but living passionately!  Anything but living dangerously!  

Human existence has been reduced to perpetually pushing that heavy stone up the hill, only to watch it roll down the hill.  Day in and day out we must push the stone up the hill, watch it roll down the hill, and then descend to the bottom to do it all over again repeatedly.  Must we also imagine ourselves happy as automatons with heavy burdens?  Perhaps if and only if being an automaton makes us stronger and does not destroy us.

Below are truly wonderful excerpts from The Gay Science and Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche (translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann).  The Gay Science is a work of art in world literature.


What preserves the species. The strongest and most evil spirits have so far advanced humanity the most: they have always rekindled the drowsing passions—all ordered society puts the passions to sleep; they have always reawakened the sense of comparison, of contradiction, of joy in the new, the daring, and the untried; they force men to meet opinion with opinion, model with model. For the most part by arms, by the overthrow of boundary stones, and by offense to the pieties, but also by new religions and moralities. The same “malice” is to be found in every teacher and preacher of the new. . . . The new is always the evil, as that which wants to conquer, to overthrow the old boundary stones and the old pieties; and only the old is the good. The good men of every age are those who dig the old ideas deep down and bear fruit with them, the husbandmen of the spirit. But all land is finally exhausted, and the plow of evil must always return.

There is a fundamentally erroneous doctrine in contemporary morality, celebrated particularly in England: according to this, the judgments “good” and “evil” are condensations of the experiences concerning “expedient” and “inexpedient”; what is called good preserves the species, while what is called evil is harmful to the species. In truth, however, the evil urges are expedient and indispensable and preserve the species to as high a degree as the good ones—only their function is different.
         --The Gay Science (1882) Translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann

Maxims and Arrows 


Out of life's school of war: what does not destroy me, makes me stronger.
         --Twilight of the Idols (1888) Translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

An Atomic Whirl of Egoisms

With the sad advent of the American election circus upon us, I begin to think how utterly absurd and futile American democracy has become over the past two centuries. I begin to think: is it worth preserving these United States when American democracy is producing such a mass of lying, deceitful, ignorant, and loathsome politicians vying for higher office? Ultimately it is 'we the people' who are the culmination of lying, deceitful, ignorant, and loathsome individuals that vote for these politicians (and perpetuate the state in so doing). "We get what we deserve" is the truism; actually you get what you deserve because I am no longer participating in this American democracy project and circus. Why? Because it is proven to be absurd and futile in principle and reality....

'We the people' (the masses) are the blanks of society, those that are preserved by the state to simply exist. 'We the people' are the 'egoism of the masses' justifying existence blindly in a chaotic struggle of ego against ego. 'We the people' are manipulated grandly by the mass media and believe untruths and falsifications to be true and gospel because of the overarching ignorance of people. And it is those ignorant individuals that participate most in the American democracy project for they wish to preserve their lowly selves, their lowly existence, and their lowly state against the slings and arrows of genius and greatness. 

It is the collective mass of egoisms, the atomic whirl of egoisms that must be eradicated and banished. These wretched human beings and wretched egos that America exists for and is perpetuated by must be eradicated and banished to culminate in geniuses like a Beethoven or a Socrates or an Einstein or a Greek culture.  

What we have here in America is decay. America is a decomposing society because it is managed by the masses for the masses; it is managed to the lowest common denominator by the lowest common denominator.  America is a decomposing and decaying culture because it is an atomic whirl of ignorant egos struggling against each other to preserve the lowest specimen of human.

The following is an excerpt from The Portable Nietzsche (1954); Translated by Professor Walter Kaufmann (page 39-40):

Notes (1873)  

On the mythology of the historical. Hegel: “What happens to a people and occurs within it has its essential significance in its relation to the state; the mere particularities of the individuals are most remote from this subject matter of history.” But the state is always only the means for the preservation of many individuals: how could it be the aim? The hope is that with the preservation of so many blanks one may also protect a few in whom humanity culminates. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to preserve so many wretched human beings. The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist; this striving is justified to some extent only in the geniuses, inasmuch as they can thus exist. Individual and collective egoisms struggling against each other —an atomic whirl of egoisms—who would look for aims here? 

Through the genius something does result from this atomic whirl after all, and now one forms a milder opinion concerning the senselessness of this procedure —as if a blind hunter fired hundreds of times in vain and finally, by sheer accident, hit a bird. A result at last, he says to himself, and goes on firing.   (vi, 336 f.)

Monday, February 1, 2016

On The Afterworldly

I take exception with all the 'metaphysicians' of this world.  All who deprecate this world for the greater glory of another fictitious world known as heaven.  

The 'afterworldly' is the literal translation of metaphysician.  The metaphysician is one who creates dream worlds and the fictions of a god and salvation...and tells you what to do and not do in this world ('thou shalt') so you may enter the fictional eternal afterlife in heaven.

The metaphysicians are the priests who create the delusions of mankind for the masses; the priests create the man-made deity and madness of god to bring meaning to the incredible suffering of this world.  It is the suffering contained in this world, the all-too-human suffering, that spurred the creation of the afterworld...invented eternal life after death as salvation of worldly suffering.  A grand escape from the misery of human suffering taken away by the blood of a purely innocent sacrificial lamb.    

But it is time to take your head out of the sand and face reality.  Open thine eyes!  Heaven and hell do not exist; there is not an afterlife or afterworld.  What is here before you, all the joy and suffering, is all there is.  Once it is over and you draw your last breath toward death, there is nothing more forevermore....eternal death and nothingness lies before all of mankind.  One must love the fate of your very being and existence.  One must love even the suffering as it is human, all-too-human, suffering.  It is that suffering which created the god delusion and the 'afterworldly' for mankind...

Amor fati!

Below is an excerpt from Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book For None And All by Friedrich Nietzsche (appearing in 1883-1884; translation by Professor Walter Kaufmann):  


At one time Zarathustra too cast his delusion beyond man, like all the afterworldly. The work of a suffering and tortured god, the world then seemed to me. A dream the world then seemed to me, and the fiction of a god: colored smoke before the eyes of a dissatisfied deity. Good and evil and joy and pain and I and you—colored smoke this seemed to me before creative eyes. The creator wanted to look away from himself; so he created the world. 

Drunken joy it is for the sufferer to look away from his suffering and to lose himself. Drunken joy and loss of self the world once seemed to me. This world, eternally imperfect, the image of an eternal contradiction, an imperfect image—a drunken joy for its imperfect creator: thus the world once appeared to me. 

Thus I too once cast my delusion beyond man, like all the afterworldly. Beyond man indeed?

Alas, my brothers, this god whom I created was man-made and madness, like all gods! Man he was, and only a poor specimen of man and ego: out of my own ashes and fire this ghost came to me, and, verily, it did not come to me from beyond. What happened, my brothers? I overcame myself, the sufferer; I carried my own ashes to the mountains; I invented a brighter flame for myself. And behold, then this ghost fled from me. Now it would be suffering for me and agony for the recovered to believe in such ghosts: now it would be suffering for me and humiliation. Thus I speak to the afterworldly. 

It was suffering and incapacity that created all afterworlds—this and that brief madness of bliss which is experienced only by those who suffer most deeply. 

Weariness that wants to reach the ultimate with one leap, with one fatal leap, a poor ignorant weariness that does not want to want any more: this created all gods and afterworlds. 

Believe me, my brothers: it was the body that despaired of the body and touched the ultimate walls with the fingers of a deluded spirit. Believe me, my brothers: it was the body that despaired of the earth and heard the belly of being speak to it. It wanted to crash through these ultimate walls with its head, and not only with its head—over there to “that world.” But “that world” is well concealed from humans—that dehumanized inhuman world which is a heavenly nothing; and the belly of being does not speak to humans at all, except as a human. 

Verily, all being is hard to prove and hard to induce to speak. Tell me, my brothers, is not the strangest of all things proved most nearly? 

Indeed, this ego and the ego’s contradiction and confusion still speak most honestly of its being—this creating, willing, valuing ego, which is the measure and value of things. And this most honest being, the ego, speaks of the body and still wants the body, even when it poetizes and raves and flutters with broken wings. It learns to speak ever more honestly, this ego: and the more it learns, the more words and honors it finds for body and earth. 

A new pride my ego taught me, and this I teach men: no longer to bury one’s head in the sand of heavenly things, but to bear it freely, an earthly head, which creates a meaning for the earth. 

A new will I teach men: to will this way which man has walked blindly, and to affirm it, and no longer to sneak away from it like the sick and decaying. It was the sick and decaying who despised body and earth and invented the heavenly realm and the redemptive drops of blood: but they took even these sweet and gloomy poisons from body and earth. They wanted to escape their own misery, and the stars were too far for them. So they sighed: “Would that there were heavenly ways to sneak into another state of being and happiness!” Thus they invented their sneaky ruses and bloody potions. Ungrateful, these people deemed themselves transported from their bodies and this earth. But to whom did they owe the convulsions and raptures of their transport? To their bodies and this earth. 

Zarathustra is gentle with the sick. Verily, he is not angry with their kinds of comfort and ingratitude. May they become convalescents, men of overcoming, and create a higher body for themselves! Nor is Zarathustra angry with the convalescent who eyes his delusion tenderly and, at midnight, sneaks around the grave of his god: but even so his tears still betray sickness and a sick body to me. 

Many sick people have always been among the poetizers and God-cravers; furiously they hate the lover of knowledge and that youngest among the virtues, which is called “honesty.” They always look backward toward dark ages; then, indeed, delusion and faith were another matter: the rage of reason was godlikeness, and doubt was sin. 

I know these godlike men all too well: they want one to have faith in them, and doubt to be sin. All too well I also know what it is in which they have most faith. Verily, it is not in afterworlds and redemptive drops of blood, but in the body, that they too have most faith; and their body is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them, and gladly would they shed their skins. Therefore they listen to the preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds. 

Listen rather, my brothers, to the voice of the healthy body: that is a more honest and purer voice. More honestly and purely speaks the healthy body that is perfect and perpendicular; and it speaks of the meaning of the earth. 

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

On The Spirit of Gravity

The dead weight of convention is exactly what the herd seeks to preserve.  The dead weight is the "spirit of gravity" or "inertia".  The herd (the masses) wish to preserve a 'type' and direct all toward a standstill and preservation of the status quo.  The herd pushes toward contentment and conformity, it glorifies the herd nature and then it feels comfortable forevermore.  The herd seeks comfort and contentment, the individual seeks creativity and the breaking of tradition.

Witness American politics at this very moment in time, with the great crude populists of conformity leading the way because the herd so wishes.  American politics and American democracy is where the herd sanctions their spirit of gravity and inertia upon all to preserve tradition and uphold conformity.  

American democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings, bestows egalitarianism en masse ("everyone is equal to everyone else"), and blesses the dictum that at bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.  American democracy is where the herd animal becomes master over all by way of mob rule.  Witness your great crude populist politicians who wishes to be a shepherd to control the flock, much like your man on the cross did a few thousand years ago (and the current holder of the executive).

Man does not want to be controlled as cattle; he wants to discharge his power as an individual.  Yet man sits under the floor, peering up through a small crack, arms folded, sick, hurt, uncertain, silent, angry, impotent and in a voluptuous state of inertia because the spirit of gravity's full force is upon his chest.  The underground man:
My God, but what do I care about the laws of nature and arithmetic if for some reason these laws and two times two is four are not to my liking? To be sure, I won’t break through such a wall with my forehead if I really have not got strength enough to do it, but neither will I be reconciled with it simply because I have a stone wall here and have not got strength enough. 
As if such a stone wall were truly soothing and truly contained in itself at least some word on the world, solely by being two times two is four. Oh, absurdity of absurdities! Quite another thing is to understand all, to be conscious of all, all impossibilities and stone walls; not to be reconciled with a single one of these impossibilities and stone walls if you are loath to be reconciled; to reach, by way of the most inevitable logical combinations, the most revolting conclusions on the eternal theme that you yourself seem somehow to blame even for the stone wall, though once again it is obviously clear that you are in no way to blame; and in consequence of that, silently and impotently gnashing your teeth, to come to a voluptuous standstill in inertia, fancying that, as it turns out, there isn’t even anyone to be angry with; that there is no object to be found, and maybe never will be; that it’s all a sleight-of-hand, a stacked deck, a cheat, that it’s all just slops – nobody knows what and nobody knows who, but in spite of all the uncertainties and stacked decks, it still hurts, and the more uncertain you are, the more it hurts! 
-- Fyodor Dostoevsky; Notes from Underground
Below is an excerpt from Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book For None And All by Friedrich Nietzsche (appearing in 1883-1884; translation by Professor Walter Kaufmann):


My tongue is of the people: I speak too crudely and heartily for Angora rabbits. And my speech sounds even stranger to all ink-fish and pen-hacks.

My hand is a fool’s hand: beware, all tables and walls and whatever else still offer room for foolish frill or scribbling skill.

My foot is a cloven foot; with it I trample and trot over sticks and stones, crisscross, and I am happy as the devil while running so fast.

My stomach—is it an eagle’s stomach? For it likes lamb best of all. Certainly it is the stomach of some bird. Nourished on innocent things and on little, ready and impatient to fly, to fly off—that happens to be my way: how could there not be something of the bird’s way in that? And above all, I am an enemy of the spirit of gravity, that is the bird’s way—and verily, a sworn enemy, archenemy, primordial enemy. Oh, where has not my enmity flown and misflown in the past?

Of that I could well sing a song—and will sing it, although I am alone in an empty house and must sing it to my own ears. There are other singers, of course, whose throats are made mellow, whose hands are made talkative, whose eyes are made expressive, whose hearts are awakened, only by a packed house. But I am not like those.

He who will one day teach men to fly will have moved all boundary stones; the boundary stones themselves will fly up into the air before him, and he will rebaptize the earth—“the light one.”

The ostrich runs faster than the fastest horse, but even he buries his head gravely in the grave earth; even so, the man who has not yet learned to fly. Earth and life seem grave to him; and thus the spirit of gravity wants it. But whoever would become light and a bird must love himself: thus I teach.

Not, to be sure, with the love of the wilting and wasting: for among those even self-love stinks. One must learn to love oneself—thus I teach—with a wholesome and healthy love, so that one can bear to be with oneself and need not roam. Such roaming baptizes itself “love of the neighbor”: with this phrase the best lies and hypocrisies have been perpetrated so far, and especially by such as were a grave burden for all the world.

And verily, this is no command for today and tomorrow, to learn to love oneself. Rather, it is of all arts the subtlest, the most cunning, the ultimate, and the most patient. For whatever is his own is well concealed from the owner; and of all treasures, it is our own that we dig up last: thus the spirit of gravity orders it.

We are presented with grave words and values almost from the cradle: “good” and “evil” this gift is called. For its sake we are forgiven for living.

And therefore one suffers little children to come unto one—in order to forbid them betimes to love themselves: thus the spirit of gravity orders it.

And we—we carry faithfully what one gives us to bear, on hard shoulders and over rough mountains. And should we sweat, we are told: “Yes, life is a grave burden.” But only man is a grave burden for himself! That is because he carries on his shoulders too much that is alien to him. Like a camel, he kneels down and lets himself be well loaded. Especially the strong, reverent spirit that would bear much: he loads too many alien grave words and values on himself, and then life seems a desert to him.

And verily, much that is our own is also a grave burden! And much that is inside man is like an oyster: nauseating and slippery and hard to grasp, so that a noble shell with a noble embellishment must plead for it. But this art too one must learn: to have a shell and shiny sheen and shrewd blindness. Moreover, one is deceived about many things in man because many a shell is shabby and sad and altogether too much shell. Much hidden graciousness and strength is never guessed; the most exquisite delicacies find no tasters. Women know this—the most exquisite do: a little fatter, a little slimmer—oh, how much destiny lies in so little!

Man is hard to discover—hardest of all for himself: often the spirit lies about the soul. Thus the spirit of gravity orders it. He, however, has discovered himself who says, “This is my good and evil”; with that he has reduced to silence the mole and dwarf who say, “Good for all, evil for all.”

Verily, I also do not like those who consider everything good and this world the best. Such men I call the omni-satisfied. Omni-satisfaction, which knows how to taste everything, that is not the best taste. I honor the recalcitrant choosy tongues and stomachs, which have learned to say “I” and “yes” and “no.” But to chew and digest everything—that is truly the swine’s manner. Always to bray Yea-Yuh—that only the ass has learned, and whoever is of his spirit.

Deep yellow and hot red: thus my taste wants it; it mixes blood into all colors. But whoever whitewashes his house betrays a whitewashed soul to me. Some in love with mummies, the others with ghosts, and both alike enemies of all flesh and blood—oh, how both offend my taste. For I love blood.

And I do not want to reside and abide where everybody spits and spews: that happens to be my taste; rather I would live even among thieves and perjurers. Nobody has gold in his mouth. Still more revolting, however, I find all lickspittles; and the most revolting human animal that I found I baptized “parasite”: it did not want to love and yet it wanted to live on love.

Cursed I call all who have only one choice: to become evil beasts or evil tamers of beasts; among such men I would not build my home.

Cursed I call those too who must always wait; they offend my taste: all the publicans and shopkeepers and kings and other land- and storekeepers. Verily, I too have learned to wait—thoroughly—but only to wait for myself. And above all I learned to stand and walk and run and jump and climb and dance. This, however, is my doctrine: he who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance: one cannot fly into flying. With rope ladders I have learned to climb to many a window; with swift legs I climbed high masts; and to sit on high masts of knowledge seemed to me no small happiness: to flicker like small flames on high masts—a small light only and yet a great comfort for shipwrecked sailors and castaways.

By many ways, in many ways, I reached my truth: it was not on one ladder that I climbed to the height where my eye roams over my distance. And it was only reluctantly that I ever inquired about the way: that always offended my taste. I preferred to question and try out the ways themselves.

A trying and questioning was my every move; and verily, one must also learn to answer such questioning. That, however, is my taste—not good, not bad, but my taste of which I am no longer ashamed and which I have no wish to hide.

“This is my way; where is yours?”—thus I answered those who asked me “the way.” For the way—that does not exist.

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

On The Three Evils

What has been pronounced evil and maligned so much for the past two millennia are the three so-called evils of sex, will to power (the lust to rule), and selfishness.  Christianity has pronounced these natural aspects of human existence as evil. The vilification of sex, the sublimation and extirpation of egoism and the individual have been maligned most by the influence of Christianity.  The opposite of these three "evils" have been pronounced "good" by Christianity.

Oh my brothers, the hypocrisy and betrayal of mankind against himself, against the earth and himself.  That man pronounced sex as an evil thought and deed; sex, the giver of pleasure and the giver of life pronounced evil by the Christians and god believers.  What hypocrisy!

Oh my brothers, the hypocrisy and betrayal of mankind against himself, against the earth and himself.  That man pronounced will to power and the lust to rule as an evil thought and an evil deed; will to power, the eternally self-creating, self-destroying, self-overcoming of man to become the overman.  What hypocrisy!

Oh my brothers, the hypocrisy and betrayal of mankind against himself, against the earth and himself.  That man pronounced selfishness and the individual ego as an evil; selflessness, the elevation of others over self as 'good' and all else 'evil'.  What hypocrisy!

Oh my brothers, the bad logic that the selfish desires produce misfortune; consequently they are evil and reprehensible.  A "good" man must free himself from them or he cannot be "good" per this dogma.  'If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out'.  Sexual excitation means the loss of an organ and the emasculation of a man's character.  The dogma preaches not the restraining of the passions, but the extirpation of the passions.  The castrated man is a "good" man is the Christian mantra.  What hypocrisy!

Oh my brothers, the only evil are the "teachings" of Christianity with the moral dogma of the complete extirpation of the individual.

Below is an excerpt from Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book For None And All by Friedrich Nietzsche (appearing in 1883-1884; translation by Professor Walter Kaufmann):


In a dream, in the last dream of the morning, I stood in the foothills today—beyond the world, held scales, and weighed the world. Alas, the jealous dawn came too early and glowed me awake! She is always jealous of my glowing morning dreams.  

Measurable by him who has time, weighable by a good weigher, reachable by strong wings, guessable by divine nutcrackers: thus my dream found the world—my dream, a bold sailor, half ship, half hurricane, taciturn as butterflies, impatient as falcons: how did it have the patience or the time to weigh the world? Did my wisdom secretly urge it, my laughing, wide-awake day-wisdom which mocks all “infinite worlds”? For it speaks: “Wherever there is force, number will become mistress: she has more force.” 

How surely my dream looked upon this finite world, not inquisitively, not acquisitively, not afraid, not begging, as if a full apple offered itself to my hand, a ripe golden apple with cool, soft, velvet skin, thus the world offered itself to me; as if a tree waved to me, broadbranched, strong-willed, bent as a support, even as a footstool for one weary of his way, thus the world stood on my foothills; as if delicate hands carried a shrine toward me, a shrine open for the delight of bashful, adoring eyes, thus the world offered itself to me today; not riddle enough to frighten away human love, not solution enough to put to sleep human wisdom: a humanly good thing the world was to me today, though one speaks so much evil of it. 

How shall I thank my morning dream that I thus weighed the world this morning? As a humanly good thing it came to me, this dream and heart-comforter. And to imitate it by day and to learn from it what was best in it, I shall now place the three most evil things on the scales and weigh them humanly well. He that taught to bless also taught to curse; what are the three best cursed things in the world? I shall put them on the scales. 

Sex, the lust to rule, selfishness: these three have so far been best cursed and worst reputed and lied about; these three I will weigh humanly well. 

Well then, here are my foothills and there the sea: that rolls toward me, shaggy, flattering, the faithful old hundred-headed canine monster that I love. 

Well then, here I will hold the scales over the rolling sea; and a witness I choose too, to look on—you, solitary tree, fragrant and broad-vaulted, that I love. 

On what bridge does the present pass to the future? By what compulsion does the higher compel itself to the lower? And what bids even the highest grow still higher? 

Now the scales are balanced and still: three weighty questions I threw on it; three weighty answers balance the other scale.


Sex: to all hair-shirted despisers of the body, their thorn and stake, and cursed as “world” among all the afterworldly because it mocks and fools all teachers of error and confusion.

Sex: for the rabble, the slow fire on which they are burned; for all worm-eaten wood and all stinking rags, the ever-ready rut and oven. 

Sex: for free hearts, innocent and free, the garden happiness of the earth, the future’s exuberant gratitude to the present. 

Sex: only for the wilted, a sweet poison; for the lion-willed, however, the great invigoration of the heart and the reverently reserved wine of wines. 

Sex: the happiness that is the great parable of a higher happiness and the highest hope. For to many is marriage promised, and more than marriage—to many who are stranger to each other than man and woman. And who can wholly comprehend how.

Sex—but I want to have fences around my thoughts and even around my words, lest swine and swooners break into my garden! 

 The lust to rule: the scalding scourge of the hardest among the hardhearted; the hideous torture that is saved up for the cruelest; the dark flame of living pyres. 

The lust to rule: the malicious gadfly imposed on the vainest peoples; the mocker of all uncertain virtues; the rider on every horse and every pride. 

The lust to rule: the earthquake that breaks and breaks open everything worm-eaten and hollow; the rumbling, grumbling punisher that breaks open whited sepulchers; the lightning-like question mark beside premature answers. 

The lust to rule: before whose glances man crawls and ducks and slaves and becomes lower than snake and swine, until finally the great contempt cries out of him. 

The lust to rule: the terrible teacher of the great contempt, who preaches “away with you” to the very faces of cities and empires, until it finally cries out of them themselves, “Away with me!” 

The lust to rule: which, however, also ascends luringly to the pure and lonely and up to self-sufficient heights, glowing like a love that luringly paints crimson fulfillments on earthly skies. 

The lust to rule—but who would call it lust when what is high longs downward for power? Verily, there is nothing diseased or lustful in such longing and condescending. That the lonely heights should not remain lonely and self-sufficient eternally; that the mountain should descend to the valley and the winds of the height to the low plains—oh, who were to find the right name for such longing? “Gift-giving virtue”—thus Zarathustra once named the unnamable.

And at that time it also happened—and verily, it happened for the first time—that his word pronounced selfishness blessed, the wholesome, healthy selfishness that wells from a powerful soul—from a powerful soul to which belongs the high body, beautiful, triumphant, refreshing, around which everything becomes a mirror —the supple, persuasive body, the dancer whose parable and epitome is the self-enjoying soul. The self-enjoyment of such bodies and souls calls itself “virtue.” 

With its words about good and bad, such self-enjoyment screens itself as with sacred groves; with the names of its happiness it banishes from its presence whatever is contemptible. From its presence it banishes whatever is cowardly; it says: bad—that is cowardly! Contemptible to its mind is anyone who always worries, sighs, is miserable, and also anyone who picks up even the smallest advantages. It also despises all wisdom that wallows in grief; for verily, there is also wisdom that blooms in the dark, a nightshade wisdom, which always sighs: all is vain. 

Shy mistrust it holds in low esteem, also anyone who wants oaths instead of eyes and hands; also all wisdom that is all-too-mistrustful, for that is the manner of cowardly souls. In still lower esteem it holds the subservient, the doglike, who immediately lie on their backs, the humble; and there is wisdom too that is humble and doglike and pious and subservient. Altogether hateful and nauseating it finds those who never offer resistance, who swallow poisonous spittle and evil glances, the all-too-patient, all-suffering, always satisfied; for that is servile. 

Whether one be servile before gods and gods’ kicks or before men and stupid men’s opinions—whatever is servile it spits on, this blessed selfishness. Bad: that is what it calls everything that is sorely stooped and sordidly servile, unfree blink-eyes, oppressed hearts, and that false yielding manner that kisses with wide cowardly lips. 

And sham wisdom: that is what it calls the would-be wit of the servile and old and weary, and especially the whole wicked, nitwitted, witless foolishness of priests. The sham-wise, however—all the priests, the world-weary, and all those whose souls are womanish and servile—oh, what wicked tricks has their trickery always played on selfishness! And what was considered virtue and called virtue was playing wicked tricks on selfishness! And “selfless”—that is how all these world-weary cowards and cross-marked spiders wanted themselves, for good reasons. 

But for all these the day is now at hand, the change, the sword of judgment, the great noon: much shall be revealed there. 

And whoever proclaims the ego wholesome and holy, and selfishness blessed, verily, he will also tell what he knows, foretelling: “Verily, it is at hand, it is near, the great noon!” 

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

On The Despisers Of The Body

There is no duality in humans.  There is no separate 'body' and 'soul'; there is just the physical body. There is just the flesh and blood that is the corporeal form of the human body.  No soul that pre-existed the body and no soul that survives the bodily death.  There is no Platonic duality at all.  The priests and all the Christians believe in the duality of mankind...they believe, by a substantial leap of faith and invention, in the soul separate from the body.  But these priests and Christians deprecate this world for the greater glory of another world by inventing duality.  They deprecate their physical body for the greater glory of the metaphysical soul on faith alone (a giant leap).

There is nothing more than what we experience.  What is 'you' is the flesh and blood of a human being and nothing else.  You are not a soul, you are 'self'.  You are flesh and blood fashioned into a human being with an individual conscious mind ruling you, the 'I', the 'ego' of your consciousness.

The priests and the Christians have given up on being human from an early age.  They wish to forego this physical world for an invented metaphysical world.  They despise their bodies and their all-too-humanness and their realities and invented a perfect place where the soul exists in a bodiless realm with all other souls for eternity (i.e. heaven invention).  The greater glory of mankind for the priests and Christians is this perfect limitless dimension where souls exist for eternity.  It is a grand surrender of reality.

This Christian duality is a falsehood.  Christian duality is a fabrication of lies to deprecate and despise the actual human body in favor of some transmigration into another non-corporeal form. Priests and Christians take this leap of faith in order to avoid dealing with the harsh situation of mankind...the so-called harsh realities of existence.  What am I speaking of?  The fact that every human exists for some short period of time and then expires without much warning is a tough pill to swallow.  We all know it will happen to all of us one fine day when we draw our last breath forevermore, turn cold, and expire into dust from this earth.  To deal with such stark reality the priests and Christians invented their formless soul and their limitless heaven and hell and teach all to despise their bodies while on earth in the hope of the afterworldly.  They teach all to surrender themselves now for some future bodiless realm. 

May we now pronounce all of Christianity, all of religion, a hoax?  My brother, it is a dangerous hoax that must be eradicated from this world....there is no god, and with that pronouncement, there is no duality of mankind.  What you see is what you get, however harsh and short and joyless it may be.  In the end, we all end up the same cold remnant of nothing....
“What a thing is Man, this lauded demi-god! Does he not lack the very powers he has most need of? And if he should soar in joy, or sink in sorrow, is he not halted and returned to his cold, dull consciousness at the very moment he was longing to be lost in the vastness of infinity?” 
 — Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774)
“When I consider the narrow limits within which our active and inquiring faculties are confined; when I see how all our energies are wasted in providing for mere necessities, which again have no further end than to prolong a wretched existence; and then that all our satisfaction concerning certain subjects of investigation ends in nothing better than a passive resignation… when I consider all this… I am silent.”
— Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774)
Below is an excerpt from Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book For None And All by Friedrich Nietzsche (appearing in 1883-1884; translation by Professor Walter Kaufmann):


I want to speak to the despisers of the body. I would not have them learn and teach differently, but merely say farewell to their own bodies—and thus become silent.

“Body am I, and soul”—thus speaks the child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened and knowing say: body am I entirely, and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body.

The body is a great reason, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a herd and a shepherd. An instrument of your body is also your little reason, my brother, which you call “spirit”—a little instrument and toy of your great reason.

“I,” you say, and are proud of the word. But greater is that in which you do not wish to have faith—your body and its great reason: that does not say “I,” but does “I.”

What the sense feels, what the spirit knows, never has its end in itself. But sense and spirit would persuade you that they are the end of all things: that is how vain they are. Instruments and toys are sense and spirit: behind them still lies the self. The self also seeks with the eyes of the senses; it also listens with the ears of the spirit. Always the self listens and seeks: it compares, overpowers, conquers, destroys. It controls, and it is in control of the ego too.

Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage—whose name is self. In your body he dwells; he is your body.

There is more reason in your body than in your best wisdom. And who knows why your body needs precisely your best wisdom?

Your self laughs at your ego and at its bold leaps. “What are these leaps and flights of thought to me?” it says to itself. “A detour to my end. I am the leading strings of the ego and the prompter of its concepts.”

The self says to the ego, “Feel pain here!” Then the ego suffers and thinks how it might suffer no more—and that is why it is made to think.

The self says to the ego, “Feel pleasure here!” Then the ego is pleased and thinks how it might often be pleased again—and that is why it is made to think.

I want to speak to the despisers of the body. It is their respect that begets their contempt. What is it that created respect and contempt and worth and will? The creative self created respect and contempt; it created pleasure and pain. The creative body created the spirit as a hand for its will.

Even in your folly and contempt, you despisers of the body, you serve your self. I say unto you: your self itself wants to die and turns away from life. It is no longer capable of what it would do above all else: to create beyond itself. That is what it would do above all else, that is its fervent wish.

But now it is too late for it to do this: so your self wants to go under, O despisers of the body. Your self wants to go under, and that is why you have become despisers

And that is why you are angry with life and the earth. An unconscious envy speaks out of the squinteyed glance of your contempt.

I shall not go your way, O despisers of the body! You are no bridge to the overman!

Thus spoke Zarathustra.