attano says:
“@Meno_: I don’t agree, killing is not goal here. Then, as for the value of ritual sacrifice, there is at least one clear paragraph (no time to check on my quotes today) in the Antichrist.”
I agree, but as things go, as You suggested that Lamarkism and behavior may not either be absolute contrarian concepts, the archetypes could not possibly suggest either an absolute construction, or a defensive deconstruction against either adulation ( The Christ) or the negative (The antichrist)
Considering the basis of such semantic logistical method to solve an ontological problem; things may become clearer.
Sacrafice on the phenomenological level may occur as an obvious daily affair,with believers in the soul not really posing a threat to material acquisition in the sense of trending or transvaluing the ideal into pragmatic utility , a reductive effort that Marxism tried to counterbalance ; through the world.( and it appearently hasn’t worked)- mass sacrifice is the preferred method of silent victimization, where the poor are being progressively impoverished at they’re own expense. Such are manipulated in the name of monetary policy and supply demand functions.
There are millions of families, including hungry children, even now dying of malnutrition and allied illnesses.
These are the real martyrs, the silent sufferers, while tradition has it that price control methods have been noted as vulgar as dumping excess food into the sea to control prices
So with the advent of ‘democracy’ , ‘sacrifice’ has taken on a less delible look, one that has reduced to lower levels of participatory mystique.
But what I really wanted to imply and focus on is the sacraficial shift of religious unto socio economic transformations and how they effect the transition from an idyll of sacrificial motive from Abrahamism to it’s paralogical narratives, and that idea is not present in ‘The Antichrist’
, at least not to my knowledge. That archaic point of view could opine Lamark to it’s most advantaged politically derived suggestion, in order to maximize the perception to the initial motive of reducing scientism to the the least misunderstood level.
That is like converting the social economic theories toward minimalist Freudian economies of the will, to enhance the traditional view around social economic reality.