How to become Ubermensch?

[Tupac_Amaru_Shakur]

What does one have to do to become Nietzsche's Overman? Every single time I read about this, I don't find a concise and normal, concrete, approachable explanation. It seems as if all these Nietzschean philosophers write about everything, except this - and even when they do write, It's just so cloudy and confusing. So, I want to know - how to become Ubermensch? Give me a step-by-step instruction, manual whatever. Thank you.

[Dan~]

Existence as is, is a bridge to new future existence.
Ubermensch is an ideal about the human future.

[Tab]

Read a lot of books, hit the gym hard. Maybe grow a handlebar moustache.

Nietzche himself never seemed to work it out, neither did the nazis. Guess we'll just have to settle for being ausnahmslos-mensch.

[Arcturus Descending]

There is a new book out called "The Ubermensch for Dummies".

This book might just be as good as any of the other books which you feel would show you the way!

[promethean75]

damn you had to ax that question, didn't you. well i ain't about to go to the lengths necessary to answer that question.

i'll just tell you that the ideal is a time-sensitive synthesis of character traits and principles that are different... depending on the age and the political environment in which it is made possible. i'd say probably that the 20th century type was best exemplified by the lil renz style anarchist. he's what happens when a critical mass of conflict and contradiction is reached in a society and the only principled response is to courageously defy all law and political order. lil renz was kinda like a ceasar with the soul of christ and the mind of deadpool. like i said, a delicate synthesis. fearless leader and aristocratic soul, compassionate humanist, artist-tyrant mercenary who makes of the bourgeois the butt of his jokes. if this guy wasn't a superman i don't know what is.

[Meno_]

Practical guide:

Over man
Over and above.
Get over it, over what ever grudges you hold. even those which have to do with hidden motives, under lying terrains of power that is required to sustain the fabric of life .

Abandon all hope, expect miracles, love they neighbor including enemies, hold hidden power, but always keep it in reserve, and always known the difference between real acting and a sham.
Without these, you will always be merely a footnote to a very tiny sliver of memory.
That is over.
Man.

And never forget your debt, even to the lowest.

If someone steals from you, reward them with more, if anything adds to their negative karma , don't because it will subtract from Your own.


Get over it, for the time is short and at hand, and respect comes much , much delayed, even in it's most abbreviated form, .where it transpires into shame and slavery.

Become a slave to Your higher powers.


And accept loss for ever.

[Fixed Cross]

Two answers:
- You need to be bred on op of mankind. You need to be a "rare, exotic plant".
- If you need to ask, never mind.

[Fixed Cross]

No, I like you name and avatar. I probably like you. Feels like I know you. Forget the snub.

So, the first answer I gave is relevant.
One doesn't become an Uebermensch, unless one is one. (As with all things, "become what you are") Nietzsche is highly biology-oriented.

He never gave out much meaning about the Uebermensch, because... he too, was human. He wouldn't know either. He just concluded at one point that mankind just doesn't cut it. Its too compromised, too comprisable, not fixed enough in its .... "self-valuing".

One thing you can be sure an Uebermensch would be, is physiologically very animal like. Good in its skin like a wolf.
As for mental and spiritual capacities, he would first of all be free from all superstition, including atheism. He would not be solipsistic, he would own the world by being beloved by the world.

[Fixed Cross]

Furthermore there is the issue of morality.

The Übermensch is not caught in it, is not defined by rules that go against his own physiological nature.

Probably Nietzsche's most directly indicative piece of text in this matter is from

WILL TO POWER
BOOK IV
on DISCIPLINE AND BREEDING
(moralists hate this book. and with reason; only here does he truly move beyond morality into the pure realm of taste, which is the primary selector of the Übermensch)

II. DIONYSUS


1003 ( lan-Fall 1888)

To him that has turned out well, who does my heart good,
carved from wood that is hard, gentle, and fragrant — in whom even
the nose takes pleasure — this book is dedicated.

He enjoys the taste of what is wholesome for him;

his pleasure in anything ceases when the bounds of the whole-
some are crossed;

he divines the remedies for partial injuries; he has illnesses
as great stimulants of his life;

he knows how to exploit ill chances;

he grows stronger through the accidents that threaten to
destroy him;

he instinctively gathers from all that he sees, hears, experi-
ences, what advances his main concern — he follows a principle
of selection — he allows much to fall through;

he reacts with the slowness bred by a long caution and a
deliberate pride — he tests a stimulus for its origin and its intentions,
he does not submit;

he is always in his own company, whether he deals with
books, men, or landscapes;

he honors by choosing, by admitting, by trusting,

[Fixed Cross]

Some more from the same crystal-clear spring.

Around 1876 I was terrified to see all I had desired hitherto
compromised, as I grasped which way Wagner was going now;
and I was bound very closely to him by all the bonds of a profound
identity of needs, by gratitude, by his irreplaceability and the
absolute privation I saw before me.

At the same time I seemed to myself irrevocably incarcerated
in my philology and teaching — in an accident and makeshift of
my life: I no longer knew how to extricate myself, and was weary,
spent, used up.

At the same time I grasped that my instinct went into the oppo-
site direction from Schopenhauer’s: toward a justification of life,
even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious; for this I had
the formula “Dionysian.”

Against the theory that an “in-itself of things” must neces-
sarily be good, blessed, true, and one, Schopenhauer’s interpre-
tation of the “in-itself” as will was an essential step; but he did
not understand how to deify this will: he remained entangled in
the moral-Christian ideal. Schopenhauer was still so much subject
to the dominion of Christian values that, as soon as the thing-in-
itself was no longer “God” for him, he had to see it as bad,
stupid, and absolutely reprehensible. He failed to grasp that there
can be an infinite variety of ways of being different, even of being
god.

I can not recommend this book highly enough. It contains, in my very proud opinion, the bravest, boldest, most honest texts ever written in all of human history.

[iambiguous]

1] read Nietzsche
2] decide what you think he means by Ubermensch
3] think about yourself
4] decide if this describes you

Then, after you read the points I raise about "I" as an existential fabrication in my signature threads, come back and we'll discuss it.

For example, out in a particular context.

[Fixed Cross]

What you have now easily divined from these text is: the Übermensch has much to do with Nietzsche's adoration of Dionysos.

This does of course help a great deal, but one would have to study Nietzsche from the outset, i.e. The Birth of Tragedy, in order to form a clear conception of what Dionysos means to him. Is to him. Fortunately reading the first couple of chapters, suffices.

What one learns here, obviously, is the nature of Tragedy, the Tragic Pathos.
The Übermensch would be saturated by such pathos.



What is the TRAGIC PATHOS

From The Gay Science, a very nice piece on Hamlets "Julius Caesar" which indicates the darkness that has to be confronted in order to "own" Tragedy, which is the world in as far as it is noble.

In Honour of Shakespeare.

The best thing I could say in honour of Shakespeare, the man, is that he believed in Brutus, and cast not a shadow of suspicion on the kind of virtue which Brutus represents! It is to him that Shakespeare consecrated his best tragedy. It is at present still called by a wrong name, to him, and to the most terrible essence of lofty morality. Independence of soul! that is the question at issue! No sacrifice can be too great there : one must be able to sacrifice to it even one's dearest friend, although he be the grandest of men, the ornament of the world, the genius without peer, if one really loves freedom as the freedom of great souls, and if this freedom be threatened by him : it is thus that Shakespeare must have felt! The elevation in which he places Caesar is the most exquisite honour he could confer upon Brutus ; it is thus only that he lifts into vastness the inner problem of his hero, and similarly the strength of soul which could cut this knot! And was it actually political freedom that impelled the poet to sympathy with Brutus, and made him the accomplice of Brutus? Or was political freedom merely a symbol for something inexpressible? Do we perhaps stand before some sombre event or adventure of the poet's own soul, which has remained unknown, and of which he only cared to speak symbolically? What is all of Hamlet's melancholy in comparison with the melancholy of Brutus! and perhaps Shakespeare also knew this, as he knew the other, by experience! Perhaps he also had his dark hour and his bad angel, just as Brutus had them!

[Fixed Cross]

It is beyond question that Nietzsche would have loved Tupac Shakur, and that he would have greatly admired the attainment of power by the black freed-men by the means of combative and intoxicating music, narratives of which are steeped in tragedy.
Many white pussies will try to argue that the Uebermensch needs to be white, and love ... Frank Zappa or David Bowie some shit.
But obviously, N gave no racial parameters.
We need only look at the greatest feats of SELF-OVERCOMING in order to sniff out the best potential for the NIETZSCHEAN HEROS.

There is nothing in Nietzsche which points in any other direction than music, self-overcoming and a focus on the physical world including all of its intoxicating possibilities, all of which are predominant in the music which budded in the time of the chain-gang blues.

[Fixed Cross]

Looking at the way THIS WORLD is going, disregarding hypothetical parallel universes, only a blind man, and not a poetic or prophetic blind man either, could disregard the "lead" now held by black-American musical culture. It is simply the toughest, most rugged and most physiologically up-front type of culture that exists. It includes everything from the sublime to the depraved, these often are combined in the same natures, and these natures strive, of their very combative nature, to establish a hierarchy of drives in themselves.


That is another thing to understand if one is to understand the Uebermensch. "POLITICS OF DRIVES" inside the human soul.

The Uebermensch rules his drives like a very smart tyrant. He negotiates and coerces.

[Meno_]

I probably like You too, but adore Nietzche.
The Dionysus.
Has a long history.
The conflicts between modern and ancient forms of it are appearent vaguely, in psychological terms, parallel to interpretation .
Follows in the aesthetic morality of Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer.

Kierkegaard's Repetition points to Nietzsche' S eternal return formally, and the aesthetic is the common link.

However, Plato's Banquet is a more prevalent underwriting that is a more premordI am qualifier.

As such, the Romantic Rebel is prevasjvelly more confused and ambiguous, in my opinion.

In this way Wagner tried to synthesize between the two modes of the Romantic Idiom.

He did fail.

[Fixed Cross]

He gives the drives of which he is made their proper place, where they are most beneficial to him.
And I don't mean the chakras or some shit like that. I mean actual, human drives which are so particular to any given nature.
No generalities. Never generalities.
If you run into generalities, the idea of some general type of thing inside yourself that you share with the rest of humans, discard that notion.
Its going to take you exactly in the opposite direction of the Uebermensch.

[iambiguous]

Or, sure, you can discuss it technically, more pedantically, as the serious philosophers here are apt to do.

[Fixed Cross]

Its the deep dank secrets you want to stack. As well as those lofty, private expanses in the heights that no one shares. The Uebermensch is not built out of commodities. It is privilege upon privilege upon privilege - and requires the alchemical wisdom on how to rank, so as for a particular darkness to become a privilege.

The RANKING OF DRIVES
A task not to be attempted while under the spell of morality. Morality itself being, as long as it is upheld, the dominant drive, serving as a meat grinder for any old value one might have in ones soul. Homogenizing.

It is the instincts which ultimately must be the arbiter of rank.
But where, in this day and age, does one find such pure instincts?

Lo, I teach you the Übermensch.

[Fixed Cross]

Of all-importance is the question whether one acts out of want or out of overflowing.
Nietzsche worked out this question into a staggering degree of subtlety, his insight into the human soul is uncanny.

Once again from the same section of The Will to Power :

1009 ( Spring-Fall 1887 )

Points of view for my values: whether out of abundance or
out of want? — whether one looks on or lends a hand — or looks
away and walks off? — whether out of stored-up energy, “spon-
taneously,” or merely stimulated reactively, and provoked? whether
simple, out of a paucity of elements, or out of overwhelming mastery
over many, so they are pressed into service when they are needed?
— whether one is a problem or a solution ? — whether perfect with a
small task or imperfect with an extraordinary goal? whether one
is genuine or merely an actor, whether one is genuine as an actor
or merely a copy of an actor, whether one is a “representative”
or that which is represented?" whether a “personality” or merely
a rendezvous of personalities — whether sick from sickness or
excessive health? whether one goes on ahead as a shepherd or
as an “exception” (third species: as a fugitive)? whether one
needs dignity, or to be a “buffoon”? whether one seeks resistance
or avoids it? whether one is imperfect through being “too early”
or “too late”? whether by nature one says Yes or No or is a
peacock’s tail of many colors? whether one is sufficiently proud
not to be ashamed even of one’s vanity? whether one is still capable
of a bite of conscience? ( — this species is becoming rare: formerly
the conscience had too much to chew: now it seems to have lost
its teeth)? whether one is still capable of a “duty”?

[Fixed Cross]

More on the Tragic, and why the Tragic Pathos is still to be attained:

1029 ( 1884-1886 )

I have presented such terrible images to knowledge that any
“Epicurean delight” is out of the question. Only Dionysian joy is
sufficient: I have been the first to discover the tragic. The Greeks,
thanks to their moralistic superficiality, misunderstood it. Even
resignation is not a lesson of tragedy, but a misunderstanding of
it! Yearning for nothingness is a denial of tragic wisdom, its
opposite!

Thus we get:

1032 ( 1883-1885 )

The first question is by no means whether we are content
with ourselves, but whether we are content with anything at all.
If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves
but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us our-
selves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness
and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed
to produce this one event — and in this single moment of affirmation
all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.

1033 {March-June 1888)

The affirmative affects: pride, joy, health, love of the sexes,
enmity and war, reverence, beautiful gestures and manners,
strong will, the discipline of high spirituality, will to power,
gratitude toward earth and life — everything that is rich and
desires to bestow and that replenishes and gilds and immortalizes
and deifies life — the whole force of transfiguring virtues, every-
thing that declares good and affirms in word and deed —

1034 (1888)

We few or many who again dare to live in a dismoralized world,
we pagans in faith: we are probably also the first to grasp what
a pagan faith is: — to have to imagine higher creatures than man,
but beyond good and evil; to have to consider all being higher
as also being immoral. We believe in Olympus — and not in the
“Crucified.”

ZEUS
be praised.

[promethean75]

Many white pussies will try to argue that the Uebermensch needs to be white, and love ... Frank Zappa or David Bowie some shit.

imma white pussy that takes issue with this statement. i say with great consternation that fritz woulda laughed at the thought of a 'rapper' being an ubermensch, but on the other hand would understand exactly why a modern from the western world would exhalt such mediocre baffoonery as it rose up from the plebian soil from which it came and infected the hearts and minds of the consumer masses. because this:

the attainment of power by the black freed-men by the means of combative and intoxicating music, narratives of which are steeped in tragedy.

... is over exaggerated, sentimental nonsense that is precisely the kind of shit that makes a romantic myth out of something much more mundane than it has been made to appear through/with the artistic cultural narrative of 'hip-hop' music. firstly, the whole theater of the 'civil rights' movement in america is more of an epic comedy than a heroic tale. in general what you have is a series of historical stupidities that have resolved through the only solution possible for a cluster fuck on such a grand scale. first, our protagonist, the white man, brings africans over to be made into slaves for their budding new capitalist economy. next, a majority of angered citizens (of the working classes) begin to sympathize with the slaves... and the capitalists can't deter this anger for long before they have to pretend to want to participate in a social revolution that would abolish slavery because it's 'the ethical thing to do.' enter social reform and the civil war. and this pisses the white capitalists off because now they have to pay a wage in exchange for the neegrows labor, whereas before it was taken for free. ah but there's still profit to be made, so it's not a complete failure. then comes the civil rights movement. now the working class wage earning neegrows want more rights. understandable. but make no mistake; nothing they did by force got them their revolution. rather, again, social unrest forces bourgeois goverment to appease the masses and reform social policy to prevent more violent revolution on a larger scale. it was either give the neegrows the right to vote and use the same water fountains, or risk a total overthrow of government... in which case capitalism might have suffered a fatal blow. so nothing these africans did, directly, got them their rights. every bit of it was given to them by a master than only did so to save his own ass from more dire consequences had he not done so. and that, my friends, is the comedy of the history of the american civil rights movement from the moment they stepped off the boat to the moment they entered the studio and began producing rap music. these people are simply bystanders that have graciously accepted what has been given to them, and aside from shooting a few cops in the ghetto, their story hardly resembles anything heroic.

ah but the story must be made heroic or else it can't be sold. and here again we find the cunning capitalist dip his dirty little fingers into the pot and turn a disadvantage into something he can benefit from.

and for bonus points you can call this stupid joke of a history something 'nietzschean', and somebody will be there to buy that, too.

[promethean75]

hey but tupac. you gotta get another idol bro if you wanna go ubermensch. it's time to decide, son. do you wanna ride or die?

[promethean75]

how about bushwick bill? he's the midget on the gurney. i used to be a bushwick billist, ya know. ain't nothing wrong with dat.



"i ain't gettin' my leg shot off while bush's old ass is on TV playing golf"

[Fixed Cross]

I knew you would catch that bait.

I need contention in this thread.

I obviously disagree with your entire world-view. You are a Marxist and not entitled to an opinion on Nietzsche - that should speak for itself. Nevertheless, your contribution in what is now MY THREAD is welcome.

I continue with the actual Nietzsche's philosophy.

1037 ( Spring-Fall 1887)

Let us remove supreme goodness from the concept of God:
it is unworthy of a god. Let us also remove supreme wisdom:
it is the vanity of philosophers that is to be blamed for this mad
notion of God as a monster of wisdom: he had to be as like them
as possible. No! God the supreme power — that suffices! Every-
thing follows from it, “the world” follows from it!

1038 ( March-Fall 1888)

— And how many new gods are still possible! As for myself,
in whom the religious, that is to say god-forming, instinct occasion-
ally becomes active at impossible times — how differently, how
variously the divine has revealed itself to me each time!

So many strange things have passed before me in those time-
less moments that fall into one’s life as if from the moon, when
one no longer has any idea how old one is or how young one will
yet be — I should not doubt that there are many kinds of gods —
There are some one cannot imagine without a certain halcyon and
frivolous quality in their make-up — Perhaps light feet are even
an integral part of the concept “god” — Is it necessary to elaborate
that a god prefers to stay beyond everything bourgeois and
rational? and, between ourselves, also beyond good and evil?
His prospect is free — in Goethe’s words. And to call upon the
inestimable authority of Zarathustra in this instance: Zarathustra
goes so far as to confess: “I would believe only in a God who
could dance ” —

To repeat: how many new gods are still possible! — Zarathus-
tra himself, to be sure, is merely an old atheist: he believes
neither in old nor in new gods, Zarathustra says he would; but
Zarathrusta will not — Do not misunderstand him.

So we see that the Uebermensch has surpassed Zarathustra.
Whatever wisdom there is in Zarathustra's words, he is not wise enough.

Indeed, Zarathustra does not possess the power of pure affirmation; the Eternal Recurrence, I am sure you are familiar with this construct, is an artifice, meant to allow a mere human to attain an affirmative nature; to force it upon him!

Such... means are however means of despair, means of WANT - entirely alien to the Superhuman project.

[perpetualburn]

What you have now easily divined from these text is: the Übermensch has much to do with Nietzsche's adoration of Dionysos.

But is the Overman Dionysos? And if not, what differentiates the two?

"Away from God and gods did my will allure me... The beauty of the Superman came unto me as a shadow. Alas my brethren, what are the gods to me now" -tsz (interesting how only God and Superman are capitalized)

"Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated?

Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!"

But also:

"I am Dionysus"

"A lightening bolt. Dionysus becomes visible in emerald beauty."

Is the Overman even visible, or is he always veiled in lightning?

On the topic of Brutus, check this out from page 129:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Iruil ... 29&f=false

Nietzsche says that for the Greeks friendship was considered the "highest feeling"... similarly, the ER is his "highest thought"...