cghgh
dfgd
What are the parts of our nature which you think we need to sacrifice? The emotive instincts perhaps, or the more ego-centered hubris and vanity? Materialistic greed, or unfocused, ressentimentalist “spiritual” longing? And our strength - do you think we need to willfully sacrifice our honor, our pride, our intellectual integrity and honesty? To me it seems that the capacity for rational abstraction and deep cognition represent one part of our ‘strengths’, our instinct for honesty and sincerity with ourselves represents another part, and the intuitive sense of ‘meaning’ or orientation/impulse to something wider, more unified, more deep, more complete (to the deepest, more untouched, most pure essence of our consciousness, i.e. to that from which all other aspects of consciousness seem to originate, call it ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ [in a mostly non- or extra-religious sense] if you will) also seems a part of our strengths. To lose either this intellectual capacity, this self-honesty, or this deeper intuition would seem to represent a fundamental incapacity and inability to reach a true level of integration of knowledge that you seem to hint at here.
I agree that we must surpass many of our baser and more harmful, animalistic natures and instincts, as well as surpass many learned social instincts as well. But it seems that there are essences of who we are, on a deeper level of the authentic or imminent, which we ought to not try and sacrifice or throw away but rather nurture and endeavor to touch with clean hands. . . coming into contact with our more essential and untouched selves, prior to reactionary thought, prior to paradigmatic beliefs, prior to learned social herd conscience has been, for me, an integral part of attaining a centrality of mind, an inner focus and peace, a unity and directionality which allows for genuinely striving for knowledge at all - in otherwords, attaining such a mental state of mind and body has been a prerequisite for my ability to both seek as well as find what I would deem ‘more true’ or essential, transformative knowledge. Do you think we need to sacrifice these types of strengths that I mention, in order for knowledge to “enlarge itself” into one “tyrannical impulse”, i.e. as standing above all other impulses, actively exerting its influence upon them and orienting them to its own direction and goals? (but, if the instinct for knowledge is truly elevated to such a position of primacy, of “tyranny”, how does this possibly coicide with what Nietzsche referred to as the will to truth? Remember that Nietzsche considered such a will, the 'philosophical will par excellence’, to be false and superficial, to be a perversion of the genuine will or willing).
Precisely which “parts of our nature” and/or “strengths” do you think should be sacrificed, and which do we need to endeavor to keep, nurture and evolve?
I agree with this, when we overcome something it does not vanish, but loses its status of primacy over our consciousness - in many cases this means that it moves into the unconsciousness or into a more secondary role. The problem is that once something has made an impression in the mind, it cannot consciously be willed away; even forgetfulness cannot be brought on deliberately, and accidental forgetfulness is not a solution for obvious reasons of control and consistency (and even that which is truly forgotten can be remembered under certain circumstances).
So this calls into question what it really means to sacrifice or overcome a limitation, an instinct, a part of our natures, a learned habit, etc. For myself, I consider it more fundamental and important that we bring all aspects together into a harmony or holism of mind. This requires unwavering honesty with ourselves as well as a very keen and penetrating inner awareness. Once we sense and understand a weakness on the part of our natures/instincts/habits/etc it is a matter of fully understanding how/where/why this thing exists - this requires forming a differential analysis of the thing in question, to derive where it was generated from and what psychological functions it is fulfilling. Then it can be sufficient to undermine or redirect these psychological functions in order to reduce the primary active power of the instinct/nature/habit in question. But you are right that it will not vanish, but will persist as a ‘shadow’; how then do we deal with this persistence?
I think it requires a holistic approach. It seems to me that I can maintain these sorts of ancient or previous limitations/weaknesses in a superficially contradictory manner while I realse how I have underpowered them, yet acknowledging that the instinct/impulse will rear its ugly head from time to time given certain confluxes of circumstances, within my psyche or external to me. And the more I deny such an impulse, fully consciously and with direct intention, the less power it seems to hold upon its next emergence. This is not therefore like a temptation or animal instinct which grows in power when it is denied, but rather when we undermine and underpower the preconditions of these more pernicious, learned or habitual impulses then they seem to recede on their own initiative. But like you said they will remain as shadows, and it is for this reason that I think it is paramount to maintain inner awareness and vigilence with ourselves to keep an eye on these parts of ourselves which we seek to surpass and overcome. Reaffirmations of why we wish to so overcome them (repeating “I wish to overcome because I desire . . .”) are very helpful in maintaining focus of mind over time; also helpful is exploring alternative options and perspectives, to give ourselves more outlets for perceptual and energetic escape from situations which otherwise might appear as confining or limiting.
If we ‘sacrifice’ parts of ourselves without realising that they will persist even against all of our best and most sincere efforts, if we fail to realise that truly purging ourselves of even one vice or limitation of instinct/habit/nature is a very long and arduous process, and perhaps even in many cases is impossible, then our best efforts at self-awareness and self-overcoming will fail before they ever get off the ground - they will be plagued with a fundamental contradiction of premises.
Quite true. This is one reason why, for me, self-awareness in conjunction with the utmost honesty with oneself and inner authenticity or genuineness are absolutely essential if any conscious workings on ourselves are to have any degree of success.
The “genius” might represent, for you here, someone possessing fertile ‘soil’ of mind or having great potential, but failing to actualize this potential due to a egoistic hubris or vanity or ‘weakness of spirit’, dishonesty with himself, or being too controlled by the baser more animalistic aspects of the body? Perhaps a genius in this sense might be someone with exceptional cognitive capacity but little emotive or intuitive capacity? But then we could allow for the possibility of a more unified genius, one without such limitations and over-compensations, could we not? Would Nietzsche perhaps have been such an individual?
The totalizing and integration of the mind, the psyche, the person itself, is not possible without what I called “an atavism of the entire organism.” But the scope of the egoic consciousness is not wide enough to contain the “orgy of forces” that equates to the body and the unconscious-- to this organism.
"The whole veil of consciousness-- consciousness is a veil-- has to obscure and dissemble the whole denouement of philosophical speculation, for this veil is essentially made out of what it conceals. "
If you completely expose what lies concealed beneath the veil of consciousness, consciousness will vanish-- because it is essentially made out of what it conceals.
This is why Nietzsche speaks of the “great” and “small” reason; the reason of the body and reason as we speak of it in terms of a conscious effort or will to knowledge. Nietzsche “incorporates” or literally seeks to make corporeal this small reason, and when such a corporeality is attained to one understands the “will to power” as the total incorporation of the will to knowledge and reason into “life,” the “body,” the “orgy of forces.” Because this orgy of forces is essentially a differentiation, the one who wills to power in this specific sense cannot avoid a certain degree of dissolution and dis-integration in his own mind, which is why Nietzsche praises forgetfulness as an essential element in mental health. If one wants to go in a different direction, and integrate this orgy of forces into the will to knowledge, one must first find a way to broaden the scope of the egoic consciousness, or one will go mad and risk the complete dissolution of that consciousness-- which is consciousness properly speaking.
Certainly, consciousness exists in many ways precisely to this effect, and the separation between conscious and unconscious/body is probably to a large degree an effect of the overpowering nature that the “orgy of forces” has the potential to play upon consciousness and the ego.
Consciousness is far more shallow and superficial than it appears to be. I believe the true work of the mind lies in the unconsciousness/body.
But might consciousness be, rather than allowed to vanish, re-made, re-forged into something more? Could we not inscribe deliberately a new method upon the self-aware egoic/“I” of consciousness, one that directly corresponds to our goals in terms of knowledge, honesty and self-actualization?
I see consciousness in a very similar way as you do, but I consider that view to be the “natural” or instinctive consciousness, the one we all have before it is exposed and consequently remade. Rather than it disappearing, and rather than allowing this possibility or fear to cloud our philosophical introspections and self-discoveries, I think we can realise the potential to take a more direct control of the direction and methods of consciousness, to re-make them in such a way as they are more in line with the unconscious/body, as well as more aligned with our intentions and goals as to the workings we are doing upon ourselves - you do seem to allow for this possibility, in how you mention that the ability of consciousness to contain or handle extreme forces would need to be grown greatly if such a “remaking” could succeed (to paraphrase you, hopefully without error). I agree with this: for myself, expanding the ability of consciousness to contain and control large forces and energies is a prerequisite for exposing its baser and implied methods and functions(psychologically) with the intention of remaking consciousness into something more. . . but this more does not need to be “different” in the sense of “away from the natural/unconscious/prior/body”, but rather we can see consciousness as the false or debasing/unnatural moving-away from these prior unconscious/body forces, and thus, a growth or remaking of consciousness along the lines of its methods and functions could thus be seen, if done with the right intentions and with a degree of success, as the type of atavism of which you speak.
Essentially this is exactly what I mean when I speak of a holism of mind; more properly I suppose I ought to call it a holism of mind-body (of the “entire organism” as you so clearly put it).
Yes, as does Kierkegaard in this same manner and for the same reason. And as do Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus via their deconstruction and re-creating of psychoanalysis. These ideas, encompassing differentiation and forgetfulness as related to the “chaosmos” of forces within us, seem central to grasping Nietzsche as he truly meant to be grasped. I call this a quasi-materialist or transcendental materialist perspective, hopefully without misunderstanding in using such loaded terms. And to that extent I agree with you that self-awareness and self-actualization/holism must of necessity entail a certain amount of dissolution (destruction) of a great deal of “who/what we are” in the sense of what we used to be, what we were in a false/contrived sense before such introspective delving and workings on ourselves began to manifest concrete results.
As I indicated previously, I certainly agree with this. Strength as a capacity for endurance, a high degree of self-awareness and capacity for attention as well as an immutable personal honesty and authenticity with oneself (this presupposes the overcoming of hubris, vanity, greed and yes, I also believe, of shame) seem to be absolutely necessary prerequisites for integrating the orgy of forces into the will to knowledge (i.e. of the achievment of a holism of mind-body, as I call it).