Dissecting the Enneagram.

I

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=6711512663497470889

This test suggests that the nine Enneagram types can be analysed into two times three ‘aspects’. Let me quote the descriptions here, one triad at a time.

[size=95]A) I have tended to be fairly independent and assertive: I’ve felt that life works best when you meet it head-on. I set my own goals, get involved, and want to make things happen. I don’t like sitting around–I want to achieve something big and have an impact. I don’t necessarily seek confrontations, but I don’t let people push me around, either. Most of the time I know what I want, and I go for it. I tend to work hard and to play hard.

(B) I have tended to be quiet and am used to being on my own. I usually don’t draw much attention to myself socially, and it’s generally unusual for me to assert myself all that forcefully. I don’t feel comfortable taking the lead or being as competitive as others. Many would probably say that I’m something of a dreamer–a lot of my excitement goes on in my imagination. I can be quite content without feeling I have to be active all the time.

(C) I have tended to be extremely responsible and dedicated. I feel terrible if I don’t keep my commitments and do what’s expected of me. I want people to know that I’m there for them and that I’ll do what I believe is best for them. I’ve often made great personal sacrifices for the sake of others, whether they know it or not. I often don’t take adequate care of myself–I do the work that needs to be done and relax (and do what I really want) if there’s time left.[/size]
A and B seem to be opposite to C in regard to standards: C’s standard is the standard of one’s society, A’s and B’s is one’s own individual standard. These would correspond to extroversion and introversion in the MBTI, at least in regard to the Judging functions (Thinking and Feeling). Yet I would call the opposition between A and B an extroversion/introversion opposition, but in a non-MBTI sense. Maybe we could call it action/contemplation, respectively.

Draw an equilateral triangle ABC. Now draw a line AD so that D is in the middle of BC; do the same for a line BE and AC, respectively; and for CF and AB.

Now line CF represents dependence/independence. Line BE represents contemplation/action. And line AD? I think it represents self-assertion/lack-thereof.

size=95 I am a person who usually maintains a positive outlook and feels that things will work out for the best. I can usually find something to be enthusiastic about and different ways to occupy myself. I like being around people and helping others to be happy–I enjoy sharing my own well-being with them. (I don’t always feel great, but I try not to show it to anyone!) However, staying positive has sometimes meant that I’ve put off dealing with my own problems for too long.

(Y) I am a person who has strong feelings about things–most people can tell when I’m unhappy about something. I can be guarded with people, but I’m more sensitive than I let on. I want to know where I stand with others and who and what I can count on–it’s pretty clear to most people where they stand with me. When I’m upset about something, I want others to respond and to get as worked up as I am. I know the rules, but I don’t want people telling me what to do. I want to decide for myself.

(Z) I tend to be self-controlled and logical–I am uncomfortable dealing with feelings. I am efficient–even perfectionistic–and prefer working on my own. When there are problems or personal conflicts, I try not to bring my feelings into the situation. Some say I’m too cool and detached, but I don’t want my emotional reactions to distract me from what’s really important to me. I usually don’t show my reactions when others “get to me.”[/size]
Draw an equilateral triangle XYZ. Draw a line ZW so that W is in the middle of XY. Do the same for line YV and XZ, respectively; and for XU and YZ.

Now Z seems to correspond with the Thinking function of the MBTI. And indeed, X and Y both seem to be about feelings, though in a very different way. Let’s call ZW the Thinking/Feeling axis for now.

What about the difference between X and Y, then? Z tends to suppress one’s feelings; Y seems to never do so, so that even when one is “guarded with people”, “most people can tell when [one is] unhappy about something” and “it’s pretty clear to most people where they stand with [one].” X, on the other hand, seems to tend to drown out one’s negative feelings by deliberately (and conspicuously) focusing on positive things, or the positive side of things. Z does not drown out one’s feelings, as Thinking requires silence, not even more noise, so to say. So X and Z both subordinate their feelings to something else: to Thinking in the case of Z, and to positivity in the case of X.

II

According to the test,

AX = 7
AY = 8
AZ = 3
BX = 9
BY = 4
BZ = 5
CX = 2
CY = 6
CZ = 1

And from the descriptions, it seems that

CF is the dependence axis (the closer to C, the more important dependence);
BE “” contemplation or introspection “”;
AD “” self-assertion “”;
XU “” positivity “”;
YV “” own feelings “”;
ZW “” own thoughts “”.

Now I will try to formulate the other axes, such as AB.

A, B, and C in a way remind me of three castes, with C being the servant/serf, A the warrior/nobleman, and B the priest/cleric. This would mean the AC axis could be called the leading/serving axis. But this does not mean that B is in the middle between leading and serving—or does it? If so, in what sense?

Perhaps we could call XYZ the “feelings” triangle, as it seems to be about one’s stance toward feelings. X is concerned with positive feelings. Y, we could say, with ‘negative’ feelings, in the sense of “passion” (cognate with “pain”). Z is then concerned with neutrality in regard to feelings: it wants one’s thoughts to be coloured neither by ‘positive’ nor by ‘negative’ feelings. Perhaps then we could say the XYZ triangle is about how one’s feelings influence one’s thought.

A very surgically precise dissection, Scalpelman, jonquil says cuttingly. :wink: The conclusions in your last paragraph are most interesting.

Is there any way that you could provide a visual of the triangles with labels? I don’t know if this is possible for you to do, but it would really help.

You still haven’t revealed how you came out on the test. As you know, I am a BY, which corresponds to type 4 on the Enneagram, which is what I already knew. Taking some terms from your analysis, this type would tend towards individual standards, judging and feeling per the MBTI, contemplation (as opposed to action), and expressive. Any type can be either Introverted or Extraverted according to Jungian psychology and the MBTI.

In your ABC caste system, you said you didn’t know how B fit into the leading/serving line. I’m not so sure it’s necessary to make this distinction. Any type can have a preference for one or another to one degree or other, even changing at different times and situations.

This last paragraph of yours is interesting. You wrote: “Perhaps we could call XYZ the “feelings” triangle, as it seems to be about one’s stance toward feelings. X is concerned with positive feelings. Y, we could say, with ‘negative’ feelings, in the sense of “passion” (cognate with “pain”). Z is then concerned with neutrality in regard to feelings: it wants one’s thoughts to be coloured neither by ‘positive’ nor by ‘negative’ feelings. Perhaps then we could say the XYZ triangle is about how one’s feelings influence one’s thought.”

As I said, it would be helpful to visualize these triangles and line labels. I tend to agree that type four, as a Y, is very concerned with and expressive of negative and painful feelings. Sally Sparrow in “Blink” could be our postergirl when she said: “Sad is happy for deep people.” Of course there is more to expression than sadness and pain, and as a type four I can say that the whole spectrum is the summum bonum of my expressive existence. Too much of one feeling or missing part of the spectrum would lead to boredom and a somewhat one-sided existence. What’s important are all the potentials that the source provides for us to display. After all, as La Fontaine said, “Variety is the spice of life.”

I drew the triangles on my computer and marked the letters, but I cannot convert it to a format I could share.

You should just draw them like I said. To be absolutely clear: the apexes should be marked A, B, and C for the first triangle, and X, Y, and Z for the second (someone else I described the triangles to thought those letters referred to the sides).

First BY, next day BZ. The thing is, I cannot dedicate myself to thinking if my feeling is not calm, is perturbed. That I am an INTP means thinking is what my consciousness wants to dedicate itself to; but it also means my feeling is the deepest down, i.e., the most subconscious, of all my four MBTI functions. I could therefore call it my most fundamental function: if my foundation is perturbed, my top is too shaky to get a clear view from.

Well, the description describes C as being very concerned with serving others. A on the other hand seems to be concerned with taking the lead (“I […] want to make things happen. […] I want to achieve something big”).

Thanks for trying. I understand the difficulty. The only way to solve it would be to draw it out on a piece of paper or poster board, photograph it, upload it, and then post is as an image. I could do that, but there’s no telling whether I would represent it the way you intend. This is very possible if you have a digital camera and a site you can upload the photo to and copy the image from.

You are not alone in experiencing the problems with thinking that feelings can supersede. I’m speaking here as one with very strong emotions. I’ve been told never to act on feelings alone but rather to express them and let them die down first. However, being a type four means that often I cannot tell the difference between dramatization that feels good but clears up nothing, and genuine emotional expression that helps clear up my thinking. Mostly, I have erred on the side of all expressions and luckily I can still do some good thinking. I’m still having a great deal of difficulty seeing you as either a type four or a type five; you just never present that way, but it is true that you have to determine your own type. However, it’s not a good idea to rely on a test with regards to the Enneagram. You really need to read the books, starting with Palmer’s and then moving on to those of Riso and Hudson. Mistyping is very common for a Type One by the way, because type one’s move to type four when under stress and somehow think that because they then feel emotional, dramatic, and misunderstood, that they must be type four’s. That happened with my sister, who is a type one. I also mistyped myself a couple of times until I understood the Enneagram and the way it works better. It’s a process. Sister Lois even said that sometimes your type is the one you dislike the most and think you would never want to be. That didn’t happen with me, though. The type I have most psychological difficulty with is six. That might well be because my dad’s possibly a six.

I see, but I think this test is limited. The types are not that simple.

I don’t have a digital camera, and don’t think it’s necessary. Some will be able to picture the triangles in their minds; those who cannot can draw them on a piece of paper. It’s middle school math stuff at most.

OK. That’s fine.

I should add. FYI. A good digital camera is very cheap these days.

So is a good calculator. Still, it’s better to practise mental arithmetic.

Lol. I suck at geometry, but you’re probably right. In any case, I don’t think a calculator would help me picture triangles and labels here. Your description is good enough for that, I’m sure.

p.s. – I would still like to see some poems and aphorisms from Holst though. I like learning about poetry new to me.

[size=95]Equality? When an eagle soars in the air, the small animals of the field quickly hide.

The more a democratic world tames life, the stronger becomes the chance that distressed life will strike back despotically.

God would be ‘the Good’? Nonsense, whoever does not believe in God with Beard-and-all, believes no more.

It is said that of all the Archangels, Lucifer was dearest to God. That could reconcile me with Christianity, almost.

Only idealism can change lambs into tigers.

As long as we are spared heaven, life stays alive through inequality.

Equality is uncreative. For this reason, art is by nature undemocratic.

No artist can ever sincerely long for heaven, where—it is said—all are equal.

The occultist sees a spirit so clearly as if it were made of tin. The mystic sees a tin as if it were made of spirit.

[Adriaan Roland Holst, Brief, my translation.][/size]

“Roland” is his first last name, by the way, not his last first name.

Thank you! You have probably guessed that I will have a lot to say about this; but I don’t think you’ll be able to guess exactly what.

I’m sorry I didn’t ask you to include the original Dutch version with your translation. I only thought of it today. I like ponies if they’re in languages I can make something of. For instance, even though I don’t know German very well, I like to read German poetry in pony versions. I can then see a bit of what it looks like, how it sounds, and even a little of what is lost or different. I’ve also done some of my own German translations of Rilke, just to see how they compared with the professionals… and then I get a better feel for the language and what the translator is up against. I don’t plan to do that here, but I still need to get a feel for the original.

So before I make a more complete reply, I am asking you to post the Dutch original here. In the meantime, I will say that I like Holst’s spirit and his rather anti-establishment views on religion and politics from the psychic perspective. From the social perspective, I might take a different tack, but I find the metaphors in the last line fantastic. However, I’m not exactly sure what an “occultist” is as opposed to a “mystic.” Can you help elucidate that distinction?

I thought Roland was his middle name. If not, should I refer to him as Roland Holst? Is that what you do?

j

Well, his aunt, Henriëtte Roland Holst, is probably whom people will think you mean when you say “Roland Holst”. Thus he’s usually referred to as A. Roland Holst or Adriaan Roland Holst. But to me he is the Roland Holst, yes.

It seems that by “occultist” he means spiritists, animists, and the like—i.e., people who see things that, as far as science is concerned, are simply not there—, whereas by “mystic”, he means people who see what is there, according to science, not as base matter or anything, not as undivine, but as itself divine and noble. A pantheist would be a ‘mystic’ in that sense. Thus there is such a thing as ‘scientific pantheism’. Nietzscheanism is essentially scientific pantheism, though without belief in “the rights of humans and all living beings”, of course—that being itself a remnant of an un- and antiscientific monotheism:

[size=95]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights[.]
[The Founding Fathers, ‘Declaration of Independence’.]

“Ye higher men”—so blinketh the populace—“there are no higher men, we are all equal; man is man, before God—we are all equal!”
Before God! Now, however, this God hath died. […] Ye higher men, this God was your greatest danger.
Only since he lay in the grave have ye again arisen. Now only cometh the great noontide, now only doth the higher man become—master!
[Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, ‘The Higher Man’ 1-2.][/size]

I still would like to see the Dutch original of “Brief.” Can you post it here please?

Was ARH a contemporary of Nietzsche, and did he read Nietzsche?

Well, I will only post the aphorisms I already posted in translation.

[size=95]Equality? When an eagle soars in the air, the small animals of the field quickly hide.
Gelijkheid? Als een arend in de lucht zweeft, gaan de kleine dieren des velds snel schuil.

The more a democratic world tames life, the stronger becomes the chance that distressed life will strike back despotically.
Hoe meer een democratische wereld het leven gaat temmen, hoe sterker de kans wordt, dat het benarde leven despotisch terugslaat.

God would be ‘the Good’? Nonsense, whoever does not believe in God with Beard-and-all, believes no more.
God zou ‘het Goede’ zijn? Onzin, wie niet in God gelooft met Baard-en-al, gelooft niet meer.

It is said that of all the Archangels, Lucifer was dearest to God. That could reconcile me with Christianity, almost.
Het heet, dat, van alle Aartsengelen, Lucifer God het liefst was. Dat zou mij met het christendom, bijna, kunnen verzoenen.

Only idealism can change lambs into tigers.
Alleen het idealisme kan lammeren veranderen in tijgers.

As long as we are spared heaven, life stays alive through inequality.
Zoolang ons de hemel bespaard blijft, blijft het leven in leven door de ongelijkheid.

Equality is uncreative. For this reason, art is by nature undemocratic.
De gelijkheid is oncreatief. Daarom is de kunst van aard ondemocratisch.

No artist can ever sincerely long for heaven, where—it is said—all are equal.
Geen kunstenaar kan ooit oprecht verlangen naar de hemel, waar—naar men zegt—allen gelijk zijn.

The occultist sees a spirit so clearly as if it were made of tin. The mystic sees a tin as if it were made of spirit.
De occultist ziet een geest zoo duidelijk alsof hij van blik was. De mysticus ziet een blik alsof het van geest was.[/size]

No and yes.

Thank you. Marvelous. I was confused, thinking that what you posted was a poem called “Brief.” Is it correct to say that “Brief” is a collection of aphorisms by ARH?

At some point, I would also like to see a poem; but this is great for now. In your first post mentioning ARH on the other thread, you wrote that ARH said that “there are two kinds of people: those who believe the sum is more than its parts, and those who don’t.” You said that you are one of those who do not take the synergistic view. Where does ARH stand here? As for me, I find synergy interesting for sure, but as a holist I essentially take the view that there is no distinction whatever between part and whole, it’s just an illusion.

So, would you say that ARH is at heart a Nietzschean like yourself? How would you describe his quintessential worldview?

I can’t believe you cannot tell a bunch of aphorisms from a poem.

He subscribed to the view that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I don’t think that what he meant by that was simply synergy, though. And even if he did, that’s not how I meant to apply it to you. Of course two or more agents working together can produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy). This does not mean that we have to assume the existence of something like the ‘breath of life’, however.

The difference between the nail of your left middle finger and your body as a whole, including that nail, is just an illusion??

Not like myself, no. He had some Nietzschean thoughts, or at least they sound Nietzschean when taken out of context (as in Brief (Kort)).

Romantic.

Never underestimate the potential for idiocy from your friendly interlocutor jonquil. :unamused:

I take it that you do not subscribe to the view that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, or do you? In any case, I do not think that all that many people think along these lines anyway. Still, it is an interesting distinction to make.

Basically, yes, and a necessary one; it’s just not the ultimate reality.

Hmm. All those aphorisms you translated from “Brief” sound like your brand of Nietzscheanism. However, I’m sure that this is just a minute percentage of ARH’s total output, so it’s hard to tell how strongly he ascribed to these views. Anyway, I’m going to comment on each aphorism in the next post and you can see what comes of that effort as well.

Here I need more information. Romantic in what sense and how? I did a net search and there is hardly any information on ARH in English, so I really need your forebearance here in providing a wider context for this worldview.

Sauwelios, here are my interlinear comments on the ARH aphorisms you so kindly provided. Please reply as you see fit. Thanks.

It looks as though ARH has an issue with the idea of equality perfusing the liberal social establishment of his time as it proceeded out of the Enlightenment and the two revolutions, French and American. He is using an aspect of nature, the predation of one animal on the other, to illustrate his problem with it. However, what he is not accounting for is nature’s way of balancing itself, that nature is a system where each part works organically as a whole so that somehow a balance or homeostasis is achieved such that all organisms are sustained. Also, this is not a Romantic view.

Here ARH is expressing his dismay with democracy. He appears to be an aristocrat at heart, and this coincides rather nicely with both Nietzsche’s and your anti-democratic views. However, I only see an unverified assertion here without any foundation in truth. It’s not democracy that attempts to tame life, it’s despotic and aristocratic oppression and fascism, which wants to control life to serve and work for its own ends; and indeed that can cause so much distress that there will be an opposing reaction. This is also not a Romantic view.

I do not understand why ARH sees God only as the one with “Beard-en-al.” Also, I do not know who he is addressing here, meaning those who would have God be “the Good.” So this aphorism is unclear and I need more information to make sense of it, please.

This reminds be a bit of Blake. I don’t know if it aligns with Nietzsche’s view of Lucifer or not. Any ideas? Milton was also a great sympathizer with Lucifer and his fall to Satan.

I don’t know why this is phrased this way. I would think that it would be idealistic to change tigers into lambs, and that would also be Romantic.

Again, here ARH expresses his discomfort with and antagonism towards equality and heaven. There is a way that he sees a social eden as antipathetic to life and art. I can understand that pov, but I think that life itself takes care of that problem for us.

This is just distress and fear on ARH’s part. Art and artists do fine under any circumstances, though I don’t think any of us know that for sure since we’ve never actually experienced life in a truly equal, democratic society, just the semblance of one. What I’ve noticed is that the greater the length of the tradition of high art in a culture, the more potential there is for great art to be produced even in the face of strong and institutional efforts to suppress it. However, it looks to me as though the more that great art is encouraged, the more it is produced, as seen during the Renaissance and other art-friendly times and places. America, as you may or may not know, is not an art-friendly culture but rather friendly only to consumerist and materialist entertainment. When such an energy pervades the society, nothing much of worth gets produced. However, taking Russia as an example, great art was produced for long years in an environment and culture that lived for it and loved it in spite of all efforts to suppress it.

This is just a reinforcement of ARH’s distress around equality and social reform… and not Romantic at all.

When I asked you about this, you wrote:

To comment, there are other views of occultists and mystics, not just ARH’s eccentric one. He is not much of a Romantic here either. A good contrast can be seen in the views and the poetry of William Butler Yeats. Yeats delved into the occult and into theosophy for a good while in his early years; and he was inclined to have an aristocratic temperament and view of life as well. However, he never lost touch with his Irish roots which were in the very soil, in the blood, sweat, and spirit of the common people. And he understood the ways of the Irish proclivity to see and experience spirits, the supernatural, and the paranormal … and he could look at this from a mystical angle as well, which he expressed in his poetry both directly and metaphorically… and he experienced these things himself. Yeats had a lifelong internal struggle with the aristocratic point of view, and he worked it out through a series of poems where both sides of life and his internal conflict were represented. As a result, some of his best poetry takes on the the life and spirit of the commonest and most troubled and troublesome people in the society. His whole life was a great success as a result.

Regarding ‘scientific pantheism.’ PK Dick identified himself as an “acosmic panentheist,” which I take to mean someone who believes that “God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well,” (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism) while at the same time denying the reality of the material world. Dick said he saw the empirical world and the reality behind it in a similar way to Plato, that the archetypal realm beyond the empirical world is more real. That is closer to my view than ‘scientific pantheism.’

Take care,
j

Well, I would agree if you said that they’re both will to power and nothing besides. However, they are not the same will to power. And though they’re both part of the will to power (the world as will-to-power), they are not identical to that, either.

Well, the view of a Romantic Aristocrat, then… Indeed, now that I think of it, I do think he was an Enneagram type 4. He was primarily concerned with the Source (which he called “the Essence”).

No, that’s just you parsing words and calling right “left” and left “right”…

It’s democracy that denies that life is will to power.

Femmy prejudice. He could also be talking about the bearded Venus for all you know! :mrgreen:

The mainstream conception of God has been as only ‘the Good’ for, oh, say, two thousand years. ‘The Evil’, the opposite of ‘the Good’, was exclusive to the Devil, remember?..

What he is referring to must be the degeneration of the Jewish tribal god into the good God—which Nietzsche describes in The Antichrist.

Well, I, as a Nietzschean, identify Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, with Prometheus:

[list]In the Semitic myth of the Fall, the focus is on Eve, who accepts the serpent’s gift of knowledge of good and evil. In the Aryan myth of Prometheus, the focus is on Prometheus, who brings man the gift of fire, which belonged to Zeus (even as the knowledge of good and evil belonged to God). So in the myth of the Fall, the focus is on the receiver, whereas in the myth of Prometheus, the focus is on the giver. Of course the male is also the “giver” of the seed, whereas the female is the receiver.

The above quote of The Birth of Tragedy is echoed in the following passage:

“The idealization of the man of great sacrilege [grossen Frevlers] (a sense of his greatness) is Greek; depreciation, slandering, contempt for the sinner is Judeo-Christian.”
[WP 845 (1885-86).]

Although the Greeks warned abundantly against hubris – Heraclitus for instance says it is more urgent to quench hubris than to quench a fire --, it was not a question of contempt: for the outrage of the hubristic man was that he set himself in a higher order – the order of the gods. Icarus for instance flew too closely to the sun – the god Helios --, so that the sun’s rays melted the wax which stuck the feathers to his arms, destroying his wings and causing him to plunge to his death. But maybe his flight, which was “no middle flight”, to speak with Milton, was worth even death?

“The titanic artist was strong in his defiant belief that he could create men and, at the least, destroy Olympian gods; this he was able to do by virtue of his superior wisdom, which, to be sure, he must atone for by eternal suffering. The glorious power “to do” [das herrliche “Können”, a reference to the root of the word Kunst, “art”], which is possessed by great genius, and for which even eternal suffering is not too high a price to pay – the artist’s austere pride – is of the very essence of Aeschylean poetry [the tragedy ‘Prometheus Bound’ is by Aeschylus]”.
[BT 9.]

Though Zeus ordained that Prometheus be forever bound to the Caucasus for his crime, he was eventually unbound by Hercules. Likewise, according to some early Christian traditions, even Satan would be redeemed by Jesus at his Second Coming. Hercules was a son of Zeus and a mortal woman, even as Jesus was supposed to be the son of God and a mortal woman.

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/247]

I think he’s referring to the militancy of idealists…

But you make a good point. It’s idealistic to want to change tigers into lambs. But precisely such idealism is capable of changing the lambs who are thusly idealistic into tigers. Compare:

[size=95]The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it–what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions [compare Holst’s aphorism on tame-o-cracy!]. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic–every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.
These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free–and how much more the spirit who has become free–spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.
[Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, ‘Forays of an Untimely Man’, 38.][/size]

Yes: by not being ‘heavenly’ or egalitarian…

Yes, so? We are talking about ARH here.

For a short period after college I went through a phase where I thought about power and Hitler and over-population, but it didn’t last. I found myself moving in a different direction, mainly because my psyche tends towards wholeness and inclusion and I was fortunate enough to find myself attracted to the books of John Steinbeck along with forming an interest in psychology, parapsychology, and the occult. Still, I’ve always been an eclectic reader and power issues just don’t sit in my mind much.

I can say this much, though. The architectonics of your reply is very pleasing. The grace and elegance of the logic and the structure are superb. But as for the substance, will to power just isn’t something I think about much, so that’s why it didn’t occur to me to consider it.