Within what context - my interpretation of de Montaigne’s quote? It makes sense to me.
“Supposed to”? If the lion represents “self-respect” why then does he have an issue with the child within himself? Wouldn’t self-respect include seeing and accepting and merging all aspects of who we are within?
Our personal experiences do muddy the vision for us, don’t they?
Now that is something that all lions must strive for. Perfect freedom of self.
If the child rode upon the camel’s back, that desert experience would be different.
The smiley is the sun of the baby faced innocence of becoming, and she who posts it shines forth her brilliant radiance for the greater peace of all of us innocent sinners. Ahhhh sigh. I am so moved. The heart is infinitely good and its treasure is everywhere.
[/quote]
By your tone, I would say that you don’t really believe that.
So, tell me, Jakob, what’s your raison de etre?
Dancing, yes - waltzing, not necessarily. Nietzsche greatly valued dancing, but not bound to a social context.
Exactly. Now the question is: is the Nietzschean drawn to this systematic, “holistic” approach to Nietzsches body of work because of a greater power? I put a questionmark to the idea that this is necessarily the case, but I dont deny that it can be. What I criticize is the attitude that suggests that to approach Nietzsches work as a homogenous system automatically guarantees a superior understanding of the work, or a superior will to power.
In as far as I am influenced by him, Nietzsche is the soil, not the seed.
Even though one cannot overestimate the joys of what you describe, I think that you underestimate the depth and heights of Nietzsches joy, the joy of the solitary creator in general.
Yes, but it was you who brought in de Montaigne in the first place. That doesn’t make sense to me unless his quote is logically connected to Nietzsche. You failed to do adequately that, even though it was a praiseworthy attempt.
As I read it, the Lion of the OP doesn’t have issue with the child, he destroys him as a result of out of a lack of lightness, in very general terms, of health.
Good God, no! Well, sometimes, unfortunately, and that was probably a a bad sentence… but any vision is a reflection of (personal) experiences. Experience is the personal in “personal”, the vision is personal thought.
The Lions striving is very Yang. It destroys in the end the fertile Earth. Strive (also) softly. Yin.
Good one! The burden the camel carries is what ultimately must become the child.
jonquil absolutely a d o r e s the idea of taking life and philosophy v e r y seriously, to the exponential nth degree so that a life spent without worrying out heavily and gravely the distinctions between the lion, camel and child in Nietzsche’s extremely weighty, extremely significant allegory would hardly be worth living. Most def, Nietzsche stands on a par with my favorite author for heavy, important symbology and absolute truth without irony or ambiguity: Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Krossies comment gave me the first laugh of the day… and I love that video.
I don’t think Sauwelios is coming back here, I pissed him off by calling him Talmudic because he didn’t fall for my interpretation and let his analytical method loose on me.