The 'Outsider' or 'genius' represents the type of human being who is in the evolutionary vanguard of the species: the 'Outsider' is what all human beings will one day be like--probably, as Erich Fromm said, thousands of years from now. The 'Outsider' literally is THAT far ahead of the rest of the human race, in terms of his emotional and intellectual development. And it is for this reason, then, that the 'Outsider' is such the social misfit that he now is--why he hates his fellow human beings so much; because to him, they scarcely even seem 'human', and because he is unfortunately born much too soon, in comparison to the level of development and awareness that the rest of humanity are still trapped at. Their frequent blind, slavish dependence upon primitive animal emotion and fear-based taboo strike him as not only unworthy of a so-called 'rational', 'mature', 'adult' human population, but still more characteristic of the LESSER ANIMALS than even a human CHILD.
The 'Outsider' represents the hopes and (subconscious) aspirations and strivings of the entire human race--indeed, of all life on this planet--the inexorable, unconscious pushing of all life to attain ever greater and greater levels of sentience, or awareness. So to the human race, he is (or SHOULD be) invaluable, priceless, in the same sense in which people like Socrates, Jesus, or even Einstein are usually thought of (mostly AFTER their deaths).
But alas, more often than not, the very opposite is in fact the case regarding the 'Outsider' and his relations with his peer society: more often than not, he finds himself shunned, hated, and persecuted, because he is in fact significantly different from his neighbours. His contemporaries can no more comprehend his mind and awareness of things than our primitive cave-man ancestors could have comprehended the conversation of even an ordinary assembly-line worker, or a 'sanitation specialist' of today's average world.
So, from the point of view of the 'history' which is to be written by the future, the 'Outsider' or 'genius' is very valuable, but from the point of view of his peer culture, he is usually just the opposite: an object of fear, mistrust, scorn, derision, and sometimes fury. To the living 'Outsider' alive in the present, his condition seems to him very often as one of unending MISERY, unless by some miracle he is able to come to truly know himself, and thus understand exactly what is going on.
9 May, 2000, from an earlier train of thought of around 1998.
________________________
Compared with the short span of time they live, men of great intellect are like huge buildings, standing on a small plot of ground. The size of the building cannot be seen by anyone, just in front of it; nor, for an analogous reason, can the greatness of a genius be estimated while he lives. But when a century has passed, the world recognizes it and wishes him back again.
Arthur Schopenhauer, from Reputation.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Nobility or Greatness of Soul
According to my experience and knowledge, two main things account for the 'nobility' of individual human beings; this is therefore how I would define the phenomenon of 'nobility' (NOT, of course, in the sense of 'aristocrats'):
One, the fact that one continues to exist and to fight in the face of (and in spite of) incredible, overwhelming odds--to fight against a seemingly impersonal, apathetic universe which threatens at all times to completely overwhelm and defeat one. This is strength of character, and is my first criterion.
Two, to continue to fight KNOWING the power that the universe has over one. This requires DEPTH--depth of soul, depth of experience, depth of culture. Pascal, of course, wonderfully and poetically stated this point--perhaps better than I have seen it expressed elsewhere.
The first criterion expresses the Nietzschean sense of the individual--his primal strength of soul; the second, the Pascalian sense--his depth and breadth of soul. BOTH give to the individual that character which I would call true 'nobility' of soul; but NOT, I would say, either one of them separately.
For instance, one can be completely ignorant both culturally and in the sense of pure 'knowledge' (or experience) and yet still have enormous strength of character to continue to fight to exist. Street people, it seems to me, exhibit this trait. They exist, they survive, but they know not either who they are, nor where they might be going; and often--due to the immediacy of the problem of their mere survival, some would say--they do not even care to know any of these things.
Then there is the phenomenon of the person of fully knows his predicament, but has little or no strength of character to withstand it; and thus he frequently terminates his own existence.
It is only when and if the two traits are combined in one individual, I say, that we see the phenomenon of the 'noble' or 'great' soul--the MAHATMA (even if he also may eventually 'wreck' his own life): the great one, the great life, the noble example of a human life for us to wonder at and seek all our lives to try to emulate.
5 April, 1994.
One, the fact that one continues to exist and to fight in the face of (and in spite of) incredible, overwhelming odds--to fight against a seemingly impersonal, apathetic universe which threatens at all times to completely overwhelm and defeat one. This is strength of character, and is my first criterion.
Two, to continue to fight KNOWING the power that the universe has over one. This requires DEPTH--depth of soul, depth of experience, depth of culture. Pascal, of course, wonderfully and poetically stated this point--perhaps better than I have seen it expressed elsewhere.
The first criterion expresses the Nietzschean sense of the individual--his primal strength of soul; the second, the Pascalian sense--his depth and breadth of soul. BOTH give to the individual that character which I would call true 'nobility' of soul; but NOT, I would say, either one of them separately.
For instance, one can be completely ignorant both culturally and in the sense of pure 'knowledge' (or experience) and yet still have enormous strength of character to continue to fight to exist. Street people, it seems to me, exhibit this trait. They exist, they survive, but they know not either who they are, nor where they might be going; and often--due to the immediacy of the problem of their mere survival, some would say--they do not even care to know any of these things.
Then there is the phenomenon of the person of fully knows his predicament, but has little or no strength of character to withstand it; and thus he frequently terminates his own existence.
It is only when and if the two traits are combined in one individual, I say, that we see the phenomenon of the 'noble' or 'great' soul--the MAHATMA (even if he also may eventually 'wreck' his own life): the great one, the great life, the noble example of a human life for us to wonder at and seek all our lives to try to emulate.
5 April, 1994.
Mental Freedom
It is quite clear that any person who has managed to educate himself, who has managed to free himself from slavish submission to his society's socialisation, or subtle brainwashing--without feeling any shame, guilt, or fear because of being thus unique and different from the 'herd'--will have become very strong emotionally--very strong-willed, or strong-purposed, and will be quite capable of most any behaviour which his society may otherwise label as aberrant, deviant, anti-social, or violent--if such should be his wish. Such a person as this is truly free--and only this type of person is truly free.
His society, it is true, if it becomes aware of just how dangerously free he is (and his mental freedom can be a real danger to it), will quickly and inevitably try to imprison him, which is to say, to immediately and drastically try to curtail his mental (and physical) freedom. This is why it is often said that there is only a thin line between genius and insanity; and by 'genius' I mean mental freedom, brilliance of thought, and the daring, courageous strength of will to follow any impulse through to its logical conclusion, regardless of what consequences it might entail.
Quite simply, the 'herd', the mass of mankind, cannot easily or readily distinguish between 'insanity' and 'genius' (as I define it here); and thus it is that those few, rare souls who have found and followed a radically different vision or mindset will usually be perceived by the majority to be quite abnormal, quite the 'freak of nature'--possibly even quite insane--because, as stated, they possess a seemingly dangerous mental freedom: the usual rules of 'right' and 'wrong' mean little or nothing to them (and recall what Hesse had to say in this connection), and they are therefore very unpredictable in behaviour, and very uncontrollable; their majority will thus understandably fear them, and will nervously try to control (and imprison) them (though this is not to excuse such behaviour on the part of societal majorities).
Apollinaire was quite correct: Sade was, without question, just such a free spirit and mind as this. Nietzsche was another (also Whitman and Thoreau). Sade, if his intellect and depth of knowledge did not outshine Nietzsche's, at least dared to express his mental freedom in a far more direct and physical a manner than Nietzsche (evidently) did. Nietzsche apparently was more content to merely roam the field of the world mentally, without so much feeling the need to 'pull the nose of society', as it were, or to translate his natural impulses into physicality, action, or violence.
And other free minds have existed also, from age to age. Usually, they were either crucified, imprisoned, or burned at the stake--when they could be apprehended. Those who somehow eluded capture usually lived on the fringes of society, as outcasts, rogues, bandits, or even pirates. Every age has seen them; in the Middle Ages they were called variously as either 'Crusaders', or 'Vikings', and when those names no longer "covered a multitude of sins," poor Gilles de Rais was left holding the bag. He merely lacked the social event of sufficient magnitude to justify his untoward actions in the eyes of his majority. Very often in modern times, wars have provided this justification for modern man. It has been said before that every generation needs a good war, and here is the reason why.
I think it important to clarify here, for the weak, exactly what I mean: the Overman need not necessarily become a Sade, a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Dahmer. But he certainly can be, if that be his nature. The basic idea is to not be AFRAID to become ANYTHING, if it be your nature, or lot in life, to become it. Admit to every hidden impulse that resides within you; do not be afraid to accept and claim ANY part of yourself--your inner being. Poet, Painter, Saint, 'Sinner' or Rebel ... all are EQUAL possibilities to the Overman. He only knows that he will most definitely become SOMETHING, and would rather kill himself than become a spineless 'milquetoast' like so many of the quivering jellyfish he sees around him, who somehow pass for MEN, for real human beings. He has a passion for life and self-expression which WILL NOT BE DENIED, whatever may stand in the way.
One final word: compared to this GIANT, this brilliant, mentally-free SUPERMAN, the mass of mankind seem nothing so much as a mass of quivering, bewildered, fog-bound MICE. The Overman is the only one who can see and understand clearly. And it seems to me, if I remember correctly, that Nietzsche himself said much the same thing once, save that he used the word 'ape' instead of 'mouse'. The basic question for mankind: what is it to be--mice, or men?
"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" I choose to take my life into my own hands, to be beholden to and responsible to no one; to live my life for better or worse as myself, for myself, and by myself; I choose to be strong, to gather my will unto myself, and to give it free rein, to let it loose upon the world, be that for what others may call 'good' or for 'ill'; I choose, in short, to be a MAN.
31 March, 1995--11 February, 1999.
His society, it is true, if it becomes aware of just how dangerously free he is (and his mental freedom can be a real danger to it), will quickly and inevitably try to imprison him, which is to say, to immediately and drastically try to curtail his mental (and physical) freedom. This is why it is often said that there is only a thin line between genius and insanity; and by 'genius' I mean mental freedom, brilliance of thought, and the daring, courageous strength of will to follow any impulse through to its logical conclusion, regardless of what consequences it might entail.
Quite simply, the 'herd', the mass of mankind, cannot easily or readily distinguish between 'insanity' and 'genius' (as I define it here); and thus it is that those few, rare souls who have found and followed a radically different vision or mindset will usually be perceived by the majority to be quite abnormal, quite the 'freak of nature'--possibly even quite insane--because, as stated, they possess a seemingly dangerous mental freedom: the usual rules of 'right' and 'wrong' mean little or nothing to them (and recall what Hesse had to say in this connection), and they are therefore very unpredictable in behaviour, and very uncontrollable; their majority will thus understandably fear them, and will nervously try to control (and imprison) them (though this is not to excuse such behaviour on the part of societal majorities).
Apollinaire was quite correct: Sade was, without question, just such a free spirit and mind as this. Nietzsche was another (also Whitman and Thoreau). Sade, if his intellect and depth of knowledge did not outshine Nietzsche's, at least dared to express his mental freedom in a far more direct and physical a manner than Nietzsche (evidently) did. Nietzsche apparently was more content to merely roam the field of the world mentally, without so much feeling the need to 'pull the nose of society', as it were, or to translate his natural impulses into physicality, action, or violence.
And other free minds have existed also, from age to age. Usually, they were either crucified, imprisoned, or burned at the stake--when they could be apprehended. Those who somehow eluded capture usually lived on the fringes of society, as outcasts, rogues, bandits, or even pirates. Every age has seen them; in the Middle Ages they were called variously as either 'Crusaders', or 'Vikings', and when those names no longer "covered a multitude of sins," poor Gilles de Rais was left holding the bag. He merely lacked the social event of sufficient magnitude to justify his untoward actions in the eyes of his majority. Very often in modern times, wars have provided this justification for modern man. It has been said before that every generation needs a good war, and here is the reason why.
I think it important to clarify here, for the weak, exactly what I mean: the Overman need not necessarily become a Sade, a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Dahmer. But he certainly can be, if that be his nature. The basic idea is to not be AFRAID to become ANYTHING, if it be your nature, or lot in life, to become it. Admit to every hidden impulse that resides within you; do not be afraid to accept and claim ANY part of yourself--your inner being. Poet, Painter, Saint, 'Sinner' or Rebel ... all are EQUAL possibilities to the Overman. He only knows that he will most definitely become SOMETHING, and would rather kill himself than become a spineless 'milquetoast' like so many of the quivering jellyfish he sees around him, who somehow pass for MEN, for real human beings. He has a passion for life and self-expression which WILL NOT BE DENIED, whatever may stand in the way.
One final word: compared to this GIANT, this brilliant, mentally-free SUPERMAN, the mass of mankind seem nothing so much as a mass of quivering, bewildered, fog-bound MICE. The Overman is the only one who can see and understand clearly. And it seems to me, if I remember correctly, that Nietzsche himself said much the same thing once, save that he used the word 'ape' instead of 'mouse'. The basic question for mankind: what is it to be--mice, or men?
"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" I choose to take my life into my own hands, to be beholden to and responsible to no one; to live my life for better or worse as myself, for myself, and by myself; I choose to be strong, to gather my will unto myself, and to give it free rein, to let it loose upon the world, be that for what others may call 'good' or for 'ill'; I choose, in short, to be a MAN.
31 March, 1995--11 February, 1999.
Nietzsche, Whitman, and Thoreau
Whitman and Thoreau were living, breathing examples of what Nietzsche was later to term the "strong human being ... [from] the wilderness, a somehow freer and more dangerous environment and form of existence, where everything that is weapons and armor in the instinct of the strong human being has its rightful place, ... a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea. ... the scientific character, the artist, the genius, the free spirit, the actor, the merchant, the great discoverer. ..." [Twilight of the Idols, 45]
"For believe me," says Nietzsche, "the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors, as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you lovers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be satisfied to live like shy deer, hidden in the woods!" [The Gay Science, 283]
_________________________
"Not suitable as a party member. Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party."
Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, 579.
I now rephrase a few key words to make this more applicable to the modern age: Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a church-member: he soon thinks himself right through the church. I know this certainly happened in my own case. 'Church' dogma is so flimsy and wobbly that I sometimes wonder that more people do not pierce through it, and see it for the sham that it really is, than actually do. Doesn't say too much for the human race at large, generally speaking, does it? But then again, not much ever does.
16 February, 2003.
(See also Twilight of the Idols, 2).
"For believe me," says Nietzsche, "the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors, as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you lovers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be satisfied to live like shy deer, hidden in the woods!" [The Gay Science, 283]
_________________________
"Not suitable as a party member. Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party."
Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, 579.
I now rephrase a few key words to make this more applicable to the modern age: Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a church-member: he soon thinks himself right through the church. I know this certainly happened in my own case. 'Church' dogma is so flimsy and wobbly that I sometimes wonder that more people do not pierce through it, and see it for the sham that it really is, than actually do. Doesn't say too much for the human race at large, generally speaking, does it? But then again, not much ever does.
16 February, 2003.
(See also Twilight of the Idols, 2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
