This blog is an extension of my other google site Nietzscheanish-Americanism. The main project of Nietzsche I think was to replace the Pauline sainthood values with the heroic virtues of the Norse and Greeks so that one does not throw away the hero in one's soul. A recurrent metaphor he uses to convey this greater overall aim is that he and his teachings are a North wind. He expresses this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in the section on the Happy Isles. He emphasizes this section again in Preface to Ecce Homo, Section 4, by writing:
Among my writings my Zarathustra stands to my mind by itself. With that I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is, the book that is truly characterized by the air of the heights—the whole fact of man lies beneath it at a tremendous distance—it is also the deepest, born out of the innermost wealth of truth, an inexhaustible well to which no pail descends without coming up again filled with gold and goodness. Here no "prophet" is speaking, none of those gruesome hybrids of sickness and will to power whom people call founders of religions. Above all, one must hear aright the tone that comes from this mouth, the halcyon tone, lest one should do wretched injustice to the meaning of its wisdom.
"It is the stillest words that bring on the storm. Thoughts that come on doves' feet guide the world." [Thus Spoke Zarathustra, II, 44.]
The figs are falling from the trees; they are good and sweet; and, as they fall, their red skin bursts. I am a north wind to ripe figs. Thus, like figs, these teachings fall to you, my friends: now consume their juice and their sweet meat. It is fall around us, and pure sky and afternoon. [Thus Spoke Zarathustra, II, 24.]
I interpret this as Nietzsche is a North wind that brings on a storm cloud of change, like lightning that ignites the soul to grow toward a more heroic ideal. Nietzsche goes on to express his feeling elated that he has replaced the Pauline sainthood virtues and values and Paul's more south wind. He basically explains that the wind of Paul is an emasculating psychical energy within a cult of personality, by seeking to turn men into celibate male-brides of a male messiah by repressing their masculine instincts. Nietzsche's Zarathustra character is not a guru or a cult leader, but an inspiration. Zarathustra does not demand cultish devotion, he only teaches and exemplifies in literary form a Yes to life attitude and instead of despising the body, he proclaims the goodness of biological life in the body on earth.
It is no fanatic that speaks here; this is not "preaching"; no faith is demanded here: from an infinite abundance of light and depth of happiness falls drop upon drop, word upon word: the tempo of these speeches is a tender adagio. Such things reach only the most select. It is a privilege without equal to be a listener here.
Is not Zarathustra in view of all this a seducer?— But what does he himself say, as he returns again for the first time to his solitude? Precisely the opposite of everything that any "sage," "saint," "world-redeemer," or any other decadent would say in such a case.— Not only does he speak differently, he also is different.—
Now I go alone, my disciples. You, too, go now, alone.
Thus I want it.
Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you.
The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must also be able to hate his friends.
One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath?
You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you.
You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers—but what matter all believers?
You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little.
Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.
[Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I, 22.]
Friedrich Nietzsche
On this perfect day, when everything is ripening and not only the grape turns brown, the eye of the sun just fell upon my life: I looked back, I looked forward, and never saw so many and such good things at once. It was not for nothing that I buried my forty-fourth year today; I had the right to bury it; whatever was life in it has been saved, is immortal. The first book of the Revaluation of All Values, the Songs of Zarathustra, the Twilight of the Idols, my attempt to philosophize with a hammer—all presents of this year, indeed of its last quarter! How could I fail to be grateful to my whole life?—and so I tell my life to myself.
In Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, his central character Zarathustra says, "over cloud and day and night, did I spread out laughter like a colored canopy." I really like this quote as it signifies Nietzsche's ideal of a joyful and expansive attitude rather than a sky cast canopy of morose sainthood. Such imagery represents for me a powerful, uninhibited, expression of life
I would believe only in a god who could dance. — Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra.
This is one of Nietzsche’s most famous quotes. Like a catchy tune, it sticks effortlessly in the memory after one hearing. Perhaps this is only because it conjures up such a silly image. I imagine the God of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, bearded and robed, skipping and dancing from cloud to cloud, filling heaven with capricious laughter.
But why is this image so silly? Why was Michelangelo, along with so many others, inclined to picture God as solemn, grave, and frowning? Why is a dancing deity such a paradox?
A true god would have no need to be serious and severe; those values are for stern parents, Sunday-school preachers, and ruler-snapping teachers. I know this from my own teaching experience: Putting on a strict, frowning, joyless countenance is a desperate measure. Teachers do it in order to reduce their yapping, fidgeting, giggling, scatterbrained kids into hushed, intimidated, obedient students. But would a god need to resort to such scare-tactics?
This observation is part of Nietzsche’s aim, to resuscitate the Dionysian in European life. By Dionysian, Nietzsche meant the joys of passion, disorder, chaos, and of creative destruction. The Dionysian man identifies with the stormy waves smashing the shore, with the lion tearing into its prey. He is intoxicated by earthly life; every sensation is a joy, every step is a frolic.This is quite obviously in stark contrast with the Platonic ideal of a philosopher: always calm and composed, scorning the pleasures of the body, worshiping logical order and truth. A true Platonist would never dance. Christianity largely adopted this Platonic idea, which found ultimate expression in the monastic life—a life of routine, celibacy, constant prayer, scant diet, and self-mortification—a life that rejects earthly joys.
This crown to crown the laughing man, this rose-wreath crown: I myself have set this crown upon my head, I myself have pronounced my laughter holy.....
I would only believe in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall. Not by wrath does one kill but by laughter. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity!
.....
And let that day be lost to us on which we did not dance once! And let that wisdom be false to us that brought no laughter with it!
(Source)
... —and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it: Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou had not those for whom thou shinest!
For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou would have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow, and blessed thee for it.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL: ... Yeah, I don’t have to have faith, I have experience. ... I [have the] experience of the wonder, of the life, I have [the] experience of love, I have experience of hatred, malice — I’d like to punch the guy’s jaw, and I admit this. But those are different divinities, I mean, from the point of view of a symbolic imaging. Those are different images operating in me.
For instance, when I was a little boy and was being brought up a Roman Catholic, I was told I had a guardian angel on my right side and a tempting devil on my left, and when it came to making a decision of what I would do, the decision would depend on which one had most influence on me. And I must say that in my boyhood, and I think also in the people who were teaching me, they actually concretized those thoughts.
... It was an angel [literally]. That angel is a fact and the devil is a fact, do you see; otherwise, one thinks of them as metaphors for the energies that are afflicting and guiding you. ... [those energies come] from your own life. The energy of your own body, the different organs in your body, including your head, are the conflict systems. ... From the ultimate energy that’s the life of the universe. And then you say, well, somebody has to generate that. Why do you have to say that? Why can’t it be impersonal? That would be Brahman, that would be the transcendent mystery, that you can also personify.
BILL MOYERS: Can men and women live with an impersonality?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Yes, they do all over the place. Just go east of Suez. In the East, the gods are much more elemental.
BILL MOYERS: Elemental?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Elemental, less human and more like the powers of nature. I see a deity as representing an energy system, and part of the energy system is the human energy systems of love and malice, hate, benevolence, compassion. And in Oriental thinking, the god is the vehicle of the energy, not its source.
Rather than literal angels and devils, I see such ideas as instead personifications of our emotions and instincts and patterns of behavior. So that there are gods of anger and selfishness or God's of self-control and kindness, which are energies within the body: that are only personified as angels and devils not as literal entities. The mythologies of the world are thus about the inner conflicts and drives within your body and the drives and inner conflicts in other's bodies in a dynamic tangle of forces and the survival and replication of the species.
From Post-Sainthood to Pro-Creatorhood: Creating my own Character and Persona beyond Sainthood
Part of growing beyond Pauline sainthood is becoming pro-creatorhood: a term I came up with to describe creating your own worldview, ethical code, and lifestyle while giving style to your character and becoming your real authentic self; by first taking off the biblical dogma-googles and religious personae and performative pious masks; and instead beginning to see the world through your own eyes for the first time as your true authentic self.
A key component of creatorhood is bringing forth your truest most authentic self and identity by moving away from trying to mold yourself into the mirror image of the Pauline Augustinian personality or persona; and instead becoming an existentialist artist in the realm of self-creation and becoming your true self.
I'm influenced heavily by Nietzsche in this regard and his emphasis on giving style to your character and becoming who you are (not who they want to mold you into in their pious dogmatic image). You cannot become who you truly are if you're constantly molding yourself into someone else's created persona, an often pretend pious persona, made in the image of Paul, Augustine, or Luther, etc. You're true authentic personality is not going to fully come through if you are conforming to someone else's personality and molding yourself into a fake persona based on an indoctrinated, conformist, fake pious performance.
So the opposite of post-sainthood is for me pro-creatorhood: the creation of your real authentic self, becoming the creative artist of your own life and story. Choosing to live a life of joy and creativity rather than a life of pious conformity, stuck in a trap of religious fear and blind obedience to maintain a pretend identity. In my own case, I can psychoanalyze myself today and see a clear and distinguishable difference between my pre-19 year old self and my post-19 year old self. In other words, before turning 18 -- and becoming more active in the Brighamite/LDS Church (when contemplating going on an LDS mission) -- my authentic personality was able to come forth more, prior to age 19. For I had developed, between the age of 12 and 18, secular friendships and a secular identity apart from the LDS Church by living in more secular California (where most people are not LDS). So despite going to Church regularly as a child and being heavily indoctrinated, after about age 12 I broke away from the indoctrination and stopped attending the LDS Church sacrament meetings on Sundays.
When I turned 14, and until I was 17, I avoided the shame culture of LDS Church meetings on Sundays and only went to LDS dances, while also going to secular venues and clubs occasionally, etc. In Mormon language I was pretty much "inactive / less active" during this time (ages 14-17). This was a time of exploration and developing my true nature and self, which was not priestly nor pious at all which I can see now in hindsight. But everything changed for me after I entered the MTC and began experiencing serious cultish indoctrination on my two year LDS mission in the 1990s.
After age 19, after becoming a missionary and ordained minister, I was more fully indoctrinated and immersed into a cult mentality and doctrinaire Mormonism as a missionary and ordained minister for the LDS Church. During this time, I pretty much lost the sense of my true self and real identity; and ever since my mission I became a pious performer to one degree or another; and had difficulty taking off this mask of piety because of those two long years of daily preaching and scripture study as an ordained minister (I actually read the entire Bible on my mission) and basically engaging in self-indoctrinating myself daily by bearing an LDS testimony and essentially selling Brighamite brand Mormonism. It took me a long time to reconnect with my pre-19 year old self after that, getting back to when I was more "myself," and less fixated on heavy religious subjects and was more free and fun and jovial and spontaneous and creative.
Pro-creatorhood means for me seeing yourself as not just an absorber of scripture and one who obeys a religious creed or clergymen, but being a self-rolling wheel: a self-creating exuberant star so to speak. It is the recognition that you are an individual and a unique self, with your own personality and genetics and capacity for greatness in your own sphere of potentiality.
Creatorhood means starting random conversations with spontaneous creativity without some unconscious religious agenda, and instead always flowing to the rhythm of reality rather conforming to Pauline-Augustinian dogma. Living with genuine aliveness and curiosity rather than acting like a pre-programmed robot following a scriptural script and fitting your demeanor and communication into a performative mold of a priestly saint. It means making a choice to free yourself from the self-enslaving mold of sainthood by choosing the freedom of creatorhood.
It's as if to put the word holy before the Bible is signifying that being holy, or saintly, is to lack a sense of humor. Just think about it, why are most highly religious comedians so terrible and unpopular for the most part? Sure someone's going to mention an exception to this rule, but the reason is obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment