A bit from my book I want to make sure of:
The artist and the artisan are both driven by the same impetus - an effort to overcome suffering. Suffering, however, has not been sufficiently defined in the past: in reality, the suffering the artist endures is resistance. Everything which stifles the desires of the Will creates suffering through resistance, as it impedes the Will from doing what it does, that is, gaining power over objects or things in order that they can be rendered harmless to the individual. The Will to Power is a perfect psychological defense mechanism - even the slightest things which threaten it are capable of rousing an astonishingly violent reaction. All of the physical needs, sexual appetites, and other such hungers of the body are expressed and secured by the Will to Power. The primary role the Will to Power serves, though, is that of definition: it allows the mind to react to new environments and gain power over the unknown by defining it. In this sense, there is nothing terrible about power: it is an absolutely necessary function of life, as important as the Will to Breathe.
However, not everything is capable of being overpowered. After overcoming the Will to Power and breeching the first line of defense for the self, as it were, the object of suffering then encounters the Will to Sublimation, the Will responsible for artwork (and religion, though that we will arrive at later). The Will to Sublimation is the final barrier between the Will and the deep psyche, and is responsible for the diversion of trauma away from the inner mind through a refocusing of the Will to Power upon an object other than that capable of resistance: art and other acts of creation. Without either suffering or a fear of suffering - if the object created by the Will is necessary for survival - there is no creation. Even inventors who create for money do so ultimately out of a desire to avoid starvation and keep their bills paid. The Will to Sublimation, acting through the Will to Power, is responsible for all acts of creation.
[/quote]
Faust
June 30, 2006, 6:48pm
2
Hierophant. Is the title of your book “Nietzsche, According to Freud”?
The will to power is not a defense mechanism, it is motive.
Except the Will to Power makes sense only as a defense mechanism, though probably not the way you think.
The Will to Power is what allows us to dominate and control things. The only reason this could be is to provide us with what we need to stay alive and keep dangerous things under control. Thus, it is a defense mechanism, though the defense it provides is really pre-emptive aggression.
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 6:55pm
4
Can we replace the word “power” with the word “survival”, please?
Also, an interesting idea about the artistic expressions being a form of sublimation.
Can we replace the word “power” with the word “survival”, please?
Also, an interesting idea about the artistic expressions being a form of sublimation.
Except it’s not. There’s a distinct difference - “power” is necessary for “survival”, but they are not the same
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 6:57pm
6
Except the Will to Power makes sense only as a defense mechanism, though probably not the way you think.
The Will to Power is what allows us to dominate and control things. The only reason this could be is to provide us with what we need to stay alive and keep dangerous things under control. Thus, it is a defense mechanism, though the defense it provides is really pre-emptive aggression.
So, agression is defensive now?
Faust
June 30, 2006, 6:59pm
7
You’re the author. I’ll think the way you tell me to. Why use the phrase if it’s not really what you mean?
Defensive agression is defensive, yes. Pre-emptive agression for a defensive reason - to stay alive.
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 7:00pm
9
And humans naturally/instinctively do allot of dis-empowering things for the sake of survival.
Faust
June 30, 2006, 7:01pm
10
I’m with Dan~ on this. This is way more compicated than it has to be.
They do a lot of controlling things, yes.
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 7:03pm
12
Greed is a form of self-defence?
Yes, greed is self-defense. He who is greedy with food will have more of it: precisely the reason why many scientists believe obestiy is a genetically inherited trait now.
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 7:05pm
14
Submission towards the societly/whole is not a form of control, it is a form of being controlled, for the sake of survival.
But who is actually doing the controlling?
The individual. He controls himself to better his survivability in society.
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 7:09pm
16
Okay, to you:
It doesn’t fit well into the original meaning of the word, but I believe you’ve changed the meaning of more then one word so that it could fit into the idea of: “The will to power”.
Faust
June 30, 2006, 7:09pm
17
One more quote within a quote and we’ll all see God, and then we won’t have to worry about this anymore.
Hierophant. Revaluing all values is not the same thing as taking every paired opposite one can extract and simply reversing them.
Okay, to you:
It doesn’t fit well into the original meaning of the word, but I believe you’ve changed the meaning of more then one word so that it could fit into the idea of: “The will to power”.
I’ve only explained what I feel is the mechanism behind the Will to Power. It must serve a purpose. Thus, the only purpose agression can serve is that of securing the needs and desires of the self. Which would fit perfectly with Nietzschean self-overcoming: directing the Will to Power towards self-improvement.
faust:
One more quote within a quote and we’ll all see God, and then we won’t have to worry about this anymore.
Hierophant. Revaluing all values is not the same thing as taking every paired opposite one can extract and simply reversing them.
I’m not simply reversing them. I’m showing that not only are agression and defense not opposites, they are really two aspects of the same thing.
Dan1
June 30, 2006, 7:13pm
20
Yez, survival, even if it means a dis-empowering submission.
