Did Nietzsche Embrace His Madness?
Capt. Meat
I remember reading some anecdotes
by those who visited the crazed philosopher
(toward the end, obviously), with them
commenting on how 'well' Friedrich
took to his madness, and how well
it seemed to suit him (and him to It)...
And because of Nietzsche's three-phase schematic
for free souls:
1) Camel
2) Lion
3) Child
...it seems that for Nietzsche specifically,
the childlike state he viewed as an embodiment
of freedom came to him in the form of insanity,
e.g. him playing in mud-puddles, megalomania,
being Napolean, etc...
So, again, did Nietzsche embrace his madness?
Regardless of it's source...(see: syphillis 'myth' or not)
Capt. Madhatter
Mercurial Phantasmagoria
Peter Schuttevaar
Capt. Meat heeft geschreven in bericht
<352466ed...@news.earthlink.net>...
The child and the maddman. That would be a nice tale. But tales or not
reality. There is nothing childish about diving into insanity. I just think
something cruel went on in Nietzsche's head.
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
PS: why is the hell such an intriguing place?
M.R.M. Parrott
Capt. Meat wrote
:...it seems that for Nietzsche specifically,
:the childlike state he viewed as an embodiment
:of freedom came to him in the form of insanity,
:e.g. him playing in mud-puddles, megalomania,
:being Napolean, etc...
:
:So, again, did Nietzsche embrace his madness?
You couldn't have hit the target better, for me, so about all I can do
is chime in. My feeling is that N., having created a philosophy of the
affirmative, and passionate, and having regarded the individual
transgression of Christian morality so importantly, that he must have
embraced such madness. Maybe it wasn't madness at all? Maybe he was just
transgressing what the herd would call proper behavior?
Thanks for the post!
M.R.M. Parrott
www.rimric.com
Terry Spragg
Insane?
Who is 'sane'? Only those who realise that the human brain is so complex as
to defy understanding, or even the definition of 'sane' are truly sane. We
must expect and embrace the unexpected. My Son, the college kid thinks I'm
nuts, and I think he is just bewildered, still lost in discovery of this mad
universe and himself.
Anybody who spits on the sidewalk is criminally insane, so what? Aren't we
all? The only rule we need is the Golden one, unless you think it's ok to eat
your children, and even then, there is a certain poetic justice in that.
Most people are afraid to be themselves, not Neets.
Terry K
In article <352466ed...@news.earthlink.net>,
Ne...@your.door (Capt. Meat) wrote:
|I remember reading some anecdotes
|by those who visited the crazed philosopher
|(toward the end, obviously), with them
|commenting on how 'well' Friedrich
|took to his madness, and how well
|it seemed to suit him (and him to It)...
|And because of Nietzsche's three-phase schematic
|for free souls:
|
|1) Camel
|2) Lion
|3) Child
|
|....it seems that for Nietzsche specifically,
|the childlike state he viewed as an embodiment
|of freedom came to him in the form of insanity,
|e.g. him playing in mud-puddles, megalomania,
|being Napolean, etc...
|
|So, again, did Nietzsche embrace his madness?
snip
|Capt. Madhatter
|Mercurial Phantasmagoria
amor...@geocities.com
> >by those who visited the crazed philosopher
> >(toward the end, obviously), with them
> >commenting on how 'well' Friedrich
> >took to his madness, and how well
> >it seemed to suit him (and him to It)...
> >And because of Nietzsche's three-phase schematic
> >for free souls:
> >
> >1) Camel
> >2) Lion
> >3) Child
> >
> >...it seems that for Nietzsche specifically,
> >the childlike state he viewed as an embodiment
> >of freedom came to him in the form of insanity,
> >e.g. him playing in mud-puddles, megalomania,
> >being Napolean, etc...
> >
> >So, again, did Nietzsche embrace his madness?
interesting question, no doubt he had premonitions of its
onset, (eg: "when will I find the strength to summon you, my
thought from the abyss?"), yet it took him by surprise in an
involuntary physical encounter (protecting the horse), and once
the neurological kundalini transformation was precipitated,
there was no longer any choice about embracing it or not.
If you want to read of similar cases, where the consciousness of
Reality overwhelms the person who summons their 'thought from the
abyss', check out the book (out of print, but in libraries):
The Wayfarers : Meher Baba With the God-Intoxicated
by Williams Donkin
> >Regardless of it's source...(see: syphillis 'myth' or not)
> >
>
> The child and the madman. That would be a nice tale. But tales are not
> reality. There is nothing childish about diving into insanity. I just think
> something cruel went on in Nietzsche's head.
yep, it werent pretty, from what I read. Though some visiting friends remarked
on
his ability to fluently improvise at the piano for hours, for a while.
(cf book 'Nietzsche: A Critical Life' (1980)
by the prolific Ronald Hayman, (now out of print))
One academic Nietzsche scholar, Claudia Crawford, thinks there
is enough ambiguity in his symptoms to warrant the hypothesis
that he was faking it intentionally! An incredibly implausible
theory IMHO, but shows how his symptoms are not as clear-cut
as the syphilis myth would have us believe.
cf:
"To Nietzsche : Dionysus, I Love You! Ariadne", by Claudia Crawford
List: $19.95
Availability: This title is currently on back order.
Paperback, Published by State Univ of New York Pr
Publication date: January 1995
ISBN: 079142150
this excerpt from a Nietzsche discussion list is interesting as it
shows the suffering that went along with being Crucified in
the particular way that Nietzsche was (I often wonder, though,
was he healthier or freer from headaches post-metanoia than pre?):
(for more discussion on this question, i have a small archive of posts at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/nietmad.txt )
------------------------------------------
In Reply to: Madness/conspiracy theory? (Jena records)
posted by Zen on June 11, 1997 at 01:47:51:
: Here are some excerpts from David Farrell Krell's book "Nietzsche a Novel"
: Krell claims these are excerpted from the actual mental health records at
the Jena Institute
: (fragments):
: 1. " Patient cooperates fully with examination procedures speaks
uninterruptedly during them-No proper awareness of his illness, feels
ucommonly well, elevated
spirits...Also that he has had a number fo fits. Throughout these too he has
felt uncommonly well, elevated spirits,he would love to have embraced and
kissed
everyone on the street, would love to have climbed the walls in order to
attain the heights. It is difficult to make the patient concentrate, his
answers are partial and
fragmentary, some times he fails to answer the questions directed to him and
carries on ceaselessly with his confused banter."
: 2. " Jan 11 1889 talks confusedly Now and then accused himself of having
plunged others into misery."
: 3. " Jan 12 When asked about his condition he replies that he feels
infinitely hale that he could only express his condition in music"
: 4. "Jan 19 the patient follows us into the ward, bowing all the while in a
most courtly fashion He walks majestically into his room and then thanks us
all for the
splendid reception. He does not know where he is.... He provides correct data
concerning himself."
: 5. " Jan 20 Despite 3.0cc of Amylenhydrate patient did not sleep."
: 6. "Jan 21 Despite 2.0cc of Chloralhydrate continuous screams. Patient
finally had to be isolated-. On one occasion claims that his father "also
suffered from
dissolution of the brain"
: 7. " Jan 22 wishes to have his compositions preformed. Conmplains of a
headache over his right temple and behind the forehead over his right eye-
Suggests that
this is the cause of his having been somewhat too lively."
: 8.. "Jan 24 Very loud now and then has to be isolated"
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Capt. Meat
"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6g3g23$ifu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>>> The child and the madman. That would be a nice tale. But tales are not
>>> reality. There is nothing childish about diving into insanity. I just
>think
>>> something cruel went on in Nietzsche's head.
>>
>>yep, it werent pretty, from what I read. Though some visiting friends
>remarked
>>on
>>his ability to fluently improvise at the piano for hours, for a while.
>>
>
>Those who came to visit him were the idolates. I do not think they knew
>something about piano playing.
Melody is structure, and even groundlings know a good tune
when they hear it...Look at Gershwin...Or the Beatles...
>
>>One academic Nietzsche scholar, Claudia Crawford, thinks there
>>is enough ambiguity in his symptoms to warrant the hypothesis
>>that he was faking it intentionally! An incredibly implausible
>>theory IMHO, but shows how his symptoms are not as clear-cut
>>as the syphilis myth would have us believe.
>
>Do you know the story of the dutch painter "van Gogh"? He first cut of an
>ear, and then later shot himself through his head. Oh my oh my, everyone
>loves that story. Must have been totaly mad. Now, why is madness so
>intriguing?
As an artist, it symbolizes Freedom. As a spectator, it is sordid,
and inexplicable to those who live as sheep. What isn't intriguing
about a 'story' such as that would be a better question...
> And why do we think that if a wise men gets mad, that there is
>a specific meaning in that?
Again, if it is indeed a pattern among 'great minds', why wouldn't
it be worthy of discussion? Toward the end, Einstein played
more violin (very poorly) and refused to wear socks,
often sleeping just a handful of hours a night...Did he transcend
the normal concerns of yer average 'sane' person? Or were
these eccentricities perhaps a glimpse into how a great mind
deals with himself?
> I realy see only one reason:
>
> There was something strange about him
> after all.
> And I am normal. that's the reason why
> I can't do such things.
Yeah, pretty much...But you're failing to include the
most fascinating reason that I, for example, am intrigued
by Nietzsche's madness...His art. His genius. If he
were simply a stone-cutter who went mad? Whatever.
Dear Friedrich? I want to know. If he invited it?
If he 'enjoyed' it? If it was his own making?
Discussion. Opinions. Nothing's black-and-white
unless writing sound-bites...
>But it's even more dangerous to suspect that a wise man would take madness
>for the ultimate form of wisdom.
Dangerous? For whom? The sane? Those who don't wish
to think of such possibilities? The excluded, perhaps?
> Only ignorant people with no other
>conception of wisdom, than that it is something out of the ordinary, can
>believe in something like that.
Wisdom has nothing to do with 'out of the ordinary'...
Extraordinarily wise men who happen to go mad undoubtedly
intrigue those who understood (and live by) their wisdom however...
How would you define madness, btw?
Capt. Inquiry
Peter Schuttevaar
amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6g3g23$ifu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> The child and the madman. That would be a nice tale. But tales are not
>> reality. There is nothing childish about diving into insanity. I just
think
>> something cruel went on in Nietzsche's head.
>
>yep, it werent pretty, from what I read. Though some visiting friends
remarked
>on
>his ability to fluently improvise at the piano for hours, for a while.
>
Those who came to visit him were the idolates. I do not think they knew
something about piano playing.
>One academic Nietzsche scholar, Claudia Crawford, thinks there
>is enough ambiguity in his symptoms to warrant the hypothesis
>that he was faking it intentionally! An incredibly implausible
>theory IMHO, but shows how his symptoms are not as clear-cut
>as the syphilis myth would have us believe.
Do you know the story of the dutch painter "van Gogh"? He first cut of an
ear, and then later shot himself through his head. Oh my oh my, everyone
loves that story. Must have been totaly mad. Now, why is madness so
intriguing? And why do we think that if a wise men gets mad, that there is
a specific meaning in that? I realy see only one reason:
There was something strange about him
after all.
And I am normal. that's the reason why
I can't do such things.
But it's even more dangerous to suspect that a wise man would take madness
for the ultimate form of wisdom. Only ignorant people with no other
conception of wisdom, than that it is something out of the ordinary, can
believe in something like that.
Greetings,
Peter Schuttevaar
Capt. Meat wrote in
<3525666d...@news.earthlink.net>...
snip
>>But it's even more dangerous to suspect that a wise man would take madness
>>for the ultimate form of wisdom.
>
>Dangerous? For whom? The sane? Those who don't wish
>to think of such possibilities? The excluded, perhaps?
To the mad man.
>> Only ignorant people with no other
>>conception of wisdom, than that it is something out of the ordinary, can
>>believe in something like that.
>
>Wisdom has nothing to do with 'out of the ordinary'...
>Extraordinarily wise men who happen to go mad undoubtedly
>intrigue those who understood (and live by) their wisdom however...
>
>How would you define madness, btw?
Madness is the loss of internal structure. The dissolvment of the
personality. The detachment of the subjectivity from the objectivity.
It is terror. It is a state of mind that nobody wants. Romanticism about it
is cruelty towards those who have such deseases.
Still, your curiosity is justified, as long as you are not trying to make
extra-ordinary people more suspect to madness. It is simply not true. A
plumber going mad, is the same thing as Nietzsche going mad. You should be
just as curious about the way of plumbing that the plumber had, as you are
curious about the way of thinking that Nietzsche had. If you are not, then
you are not interested in madness at all. Then you are apparently just
interested in madness in as far as you are able to explain something with
it.
That is not justified.
amor...@geocities.com
"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Capt. Meat wrote in
>
> snip
> >>But it's even more dangerous to suspect that a wise man would take madness
> >>for the ultimate form of wisdom.
> >
> >Dangerous? For whom? The sane? Those who don't wish
> >to think of such possibilities? The excluded, perhaps?
>
> To the mad man.
>
> >> Only ignorant people with no other
> >>conception of wisdom, than that it is something out of the ordinary, can
> >>believe in something like that.
> >
> >Wisdom has nothing to do with 'out of the ordinary'...
> >Extraordinarily wise men who happen to go mad undoubtedly
> >intrigue those who understood (and live by) their wisdom however...
> >
> >How would you define madness, btw?
>
> Madness is the loss of internal structure. The dissolvment of the
> personality. The detachment of the subjectivity from the objectivity.
>
> It is terror. It is a state of mind that nobody wants. Romanticism about it
> is cruelty towards those who have such deseases.
exactly so.
but it is only a stage through which one must pass to Wisdom.
this is the birthing process that Socrates spoke of, the terror and pain
are the body-ego's reactions to its dissolution. But across the Bridge
of madness lies the Light, go into the Light, trust the Light, it is
your True Nature, O Nobly Born, do not be distracted on your journey!
(heh, 'scuse me)
> Still, your curiosity is justified, as long as you are not trying to make
> extra-ordinary people more suspect to madness. It is simply not true. A
> plumber going mad, is the same thing as Nietzsche going mad.
Nope, pardonnez moi, unless, of course, it be one meta-plumber.
What else do we think N. meant by 'Live Dangerously' and 'What does not
kill me'? He knew he was playing with his sanity, he had had enough glimpses
of the other side to know the narrow boundaries of ordinary sanity that
our bodies have evolved to keep us engrossed in money/food/sex.
> You should be
> just as curious about the way of plumbing that the plumber had, as you are
> curious about the way of thinking that Nietzsche had. If you are not, then
> you are not interested in madness at all.
You make a good point that we should not romanticize N's afflicition,
neither should we dismiss it, that is why he is truly another 'Crucified'.
Meditation on his Passion is as profitable spiritually as on Yeshua's.
He foresaw the horrible fall of the tightrope walker in the first chapter of
Zarathustra, why dont we think he knew what he was writing about?
The shaman's journey has ever been one through madness, no matter what
sick culture they find themselves in, and the quality of the madness is
an exact response to the sickness of the culture.
(cf. book 'Madness and Modernism' arguing that schizophrenia is evolution-
in-the-works, not a 'degeneration' at least in its first phases,
[please dont knee-jerk a reply to this sentence without some glancing at the
cf., thank you])
cheers,
'mo fati
"But, still, didn't _My_ World become Perfect just now?"
-N.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
-------------------------------------
Madness and Modernism :
Insanity in the Light of Modern Art, Literature, and Thought
by Louis A. Sass
Our Price: $15.96
You Save: $3.99 (20%)
Availability: This title usually ships within 2-3 days.
Reprint Edition Paperback Published by Harvard Univ Pr
Publication date: September 1994
ISBN: 0674541375
Synopsis:
In this brilliant work, a clinical psychologist offers a startling new vision
of schizophrenia, comparing it with the works of modern writers such as Kafka
and
philosophers such as Nietzsche. "Refreshingly different from customary
writings on mental illness . . . highly original and profoundly disquieting
insights. Though the author shows some of the compulsive academic's
tendency to obsessively cite every book ever published, to ward off
any heckling from his corridor-mates."--New York Times Book Review.
Card catalog description
A stunning revelation of the eerie likeness between schizophrenic insanity and
the sensibility of modern art, literature, and thought, Madness and Modernism
presents
a vivid and highly original portrait of the world of the madman, along with a
provocative commentary on modernist and postmodernist culture. Sass, a
clinical
psychologist, explores the bizarre experiences of schizophrenia (and related
conditions) through a comparison with the works of various artists and
writers, including
Franz Kafka, Paul Valery, Samuel Beckett, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Giorgio de
Chirico, and Marcel Duchamp, and by considering the ideas of philosophers such
as
Friedrich Nietzsche, William James, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, and
Jacques Derrida. The similarities between madness and modernism are striking:
defiance of authority and convention; an extreme, often dizzying relativism,
which can culminate in paralysis; nihilism and all-embracing irony; a
tantalizing, uncanny,
but always frustrating sense of revelation; obliteration of standard forms of
time and narrative; pervasive dehumanization; and disappearance of external
reality in
favor of the omnipotent ego or, alternatively, dissolution of all sense of
selfhood. This rigorously argued, gracefully written book offers a startlingly
new vision of
schizophrenia, an illness long recognized as the greatest challenge to
psychiatric or psychological understanding. Conventionally seen as a loss of
rationality, perhaps
involving a return to some infantile or bestial condition, schizophrenia,
according to Sass, is better understood as, in a sense, a disease of
hyperrationality, with
detachment from action, emotions, and the body and entrapment in forms of
acute self-consciousness and heightened awareness. Sass refuses to romanticize
the
schizophrenic as a heroic rebel, mystic, or passionate Wildman, arguing
instead that this condition echoes many of the most alienating aspects of
modern life. In an
epilogue and appendix, he considers whether modern culture might actively
contribute to the genesis or shaping of schizophrenic forms of pathology, and
he
discusses the possible role of abnormalities of the brain. --This text refers
to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Dave
>>How would you define madness, btw?
>
>Madness is the loss of internal structure. The dissolvment of the
>personality. The detachment of the subjectivity from the objectivity.
>
Madness is unchecked self-reference. It is not loss of internal structure,
it is breakdown of the connection between internal structure and external
check-points. Madness is the inability to process information that counters
our internal interpretation of events, it is a closed-loop arc that, for
whatever reason, broke off from the main path. It is an unrecovered
divergence.
Believe.
evo...@pacbell.net
> Do you know the story of the dutch painter "van Gogh"? He first cut of an
> ear, and then later shot himself through his head. Now, why is madness so
> intriguing?
But now I'm intrigued by something else; and since this newsgroup seems to
have an interest in lists, I'd like to know something: How many famous
personages *have* gone "insane"? (And I don't mean famous for going insane
in the first place.)
I guess we have Nietzsche and Van Gogh. I can also name:
--the emperor Caligula
--Nebuca...Nebbucha...That king from the Bible who went around eating grass
--The poet Jarrell...wait, and Berryman...and Plath...and Sexton...and Crane
Can't think of any others.
?
Routledge
You'll suffer a fool, I hope, if I have another run at posting to the group.
The first post I made, in which I called for a discussion of the purpose and
morality of government, was met with a reply which I read as bitter and
sarcastic. The reply accused me of being otherworldly ("not from this planet")
for wanting to discuss government as an ideal within a discrete and optimal
set of parameters. The libertarian seemed to think the abstraction absurd;
I consider the detached and abstract objectivity to be an integral part of
something I like to call ''Philosophy."
This discussion of Nietzsche's madness intrigues me. I have long been
interested in the possible connection between madness and art and
enlightenment.
There is a book of papers entitled Transcendence and Mature Thought in
Adulthood-The Further Reaches of Adult Development, and in it a paper entitled
Rare Forms of Self-Understanding in Mature Adults. In the paper, Susanne R.
Cook-Greuter examines transcendentalistic self-awareness through a large
sampling of sentence completion tests.
The answers coming from those who are most notably aware have this in common:
they blur the barrier between self and the world around them. In effect, these
highly intelligent and aware people viewed themselves as the contents of a
small box barely drawn within a broader, changing system.
So much as that is no surprise. I would be hard pressed to argue that a strong
and important part of understanding the self wouldn't be understanding that
the self is but a part of a larger system. Part and parcel of that is the
understanding that there is only a vague and abstract separation between the
two.
What is schizophrenia but this very blurring of the separation? Whether the
madness is symptomatic of coming to this realization and integrating it into
the thought process to too great an extreme or a method by which some
involuntarily realize the connection is something that I would love to see
discussed here.
Cheers -
-R-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The limits of my language are the limits of my world."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Capt. Meat
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 18:29:37 -0800, evo...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> Do you know the story of the dutch painter "van Gogh"? He first cut of an
>> ear, and then later shot himself through his head. Now, why is madness so
>> intriguing?
>
>But now I'm intrigued by something else; and since this newsgroup seems to
>have an interest in lists
Not necessarily...They're simply effortless vehicles
to get the ball rolling...The sooner a newsgroup
incorporates discussion and not Top10 lists, the better.
(btw, that's one reason I initially x-posted this...to include
more participants...exposure...yet not indecent...for now...)
> I'd like to know something: How many famous
>personages *have* gone "insane"? (And I don't mean famous for going insane
>in the first place.)
>
>I guess we have Nietzsche and Van Gogh. I can also name:
>
>--the emperor Caligula
>--Nebuca...Nebbucha...That king from the Bible who went around eating grass
>--The poet Jarrell...wait, and Berryman...and Plath...and Sexton...and Crane
King Ludwig
Delmore Schwartz
Syd Barrett
Virginia Woolf (or just menopausal, before her swim?)
Howard Hughes
Jack Kerouac (to some extent; w/ booze)
Baudelaire (didn't he suffer from syphillis-induced psychosis?)
Pirandello (?)
Mozart (?)
Pontious Pilate (?)
Gertrude Stein (hahahhahaa)
Capt. Stumpt
Capt. Meat
amor...@geocities.com wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
>What else do we think N. meant by 'Live Dangerously' and 'What does not
>kill me'? He knew he was playing with his sanity, he had had enough glimpses
>of the other side to know the narrow boundaries of ordinary sanity that
>our bodies have evolved to keep us engrossed in money/food/sex.
I agree. I have no doubts he sensed it awaited him.
I'm just not sure if he coaxed it on, nurtured it,
relished it, or wasn't aware of its inception.
>
>> You should be
>> just as curious about the way of plumbing that the plumber had, as you are
>> curious about the way of thinking that Nietzsche had. If you are not, then
>> you are not interested in madness at all.
Madness is hard enough to define much less pigeon-hole.
The plumber's madness isn't or wasn't Nietzsche's madness.
How many 'disorders' are there now? Thousands, perhaps?
And I have studied abnornal psych/behaviorial psych/mental illness.
I'm no expert, but nor do I want to be, because if anything,
I no longer blindly accept half the methods used to
gain such 'anecdotes/wisdom' from these 'crazy folks'
they so much 'want to heal'...
The Prof Who Mistook His Wife For A Case-Study indeed...
>You make a good point that we should not romanticize N's afflicition,
>neither should we dismiss it, that is why he is truly another 'Crucified'.
>Meditation on his Passion is as profitable spiritually as on Yeshua's.
>
>He foresaw the horrible fall of the tightrope walker in the first chapter of
>Zarathustra, why dont we think he knew what he was writing about?
>
>The shaman's journey has ever been one through madness, no matter what
>sick culture they find themselves in, and the quality of the madness is
>an exact response to the sickness of the culture.
And lest we forget, a shaman's 'madness' is nothing more
than that which the 'sane society' has never seen...
>(cf. book 'Madness and Modernism' arguing that schizophrenia is evolution-
> in-the-works, not a 'degeneration' at least in its first phases,
> [please dont knee-jerk a reply to this sentence without some glancing at the
> cf., thank you])
Interesting. Because so much of our lives is compartmentalized,
packaged and separated (work-to-home-to-bed, car-via-subway-via-bus,
etc...), I see no reason why our minds shouldn't have to
'progress', if not to simply 'gauge' our physicalities/modes
on an as-needed basis...In short, yes, why wouldn't we
be 'evolving' in response to 20th C self-fragmentation?
Capt. Scattrd
Capt. Meat
ha...@megsinet.net (Routledge) wrote:
>
>You'll suffer a fool, I hope, if I have another run at posting to the group.
>The first post I made, in which I called for a discussion of the purpose and
>morality of government, was met with a reply which I read as bitter and
>sarcastic. The reply accused me of being otherworldly ("not from this planet")
>for wanting to discuss government as an ideal within a discrete and optimal
>set of parameters. The libertarian seemed to think the abstraction absurd;
>I consider the detached and abstract objectivity to be an integral part of
>something I like to call ''Philosophy."
One disagreement does not a divorce make.
(trans. "Stick around, show some teeth...Welcome back.")
>This discussion of Nietzsche's madness intrigues me. I have long been
>interested in the possible connection between madness and art and
>enlightenment.
>
>There is a book of papers entitled Transcendence and Mature Thought in
>Adulthood-The Further Reaches of Adult Development, and in it a paper entitled
>Rare Forms of Self-Understanding in Mature Adults. In the paper, Susanne R.
>Cook-Greuter examines transcendentalistic self-awareness through a large
>sampling of sentence completion tests.
>
>The answers coming from those who are most notably aware have this in common:
>they blur the barrier between self and the world around them. In effect, these
>highly intelligent and aware people viewed themselves as the contents of a
>small box barely drawn within a broader, changing system.
Reminds me of a Bacon painting. But backwards. Where I can't help
but think he often imagined himself. Interesting.
>So much as that is no surprise. I would be hard pressed to argue that a strong
>and important part of understanding the self wouldn't be understanding that
>the self is but a part of a larger system. Part and parcel of that is the
>understanding that there is only a vague and abstract separation between the
>two.
Caged, but in order with the Greater Plane? Or simply identifiable?
>What is schizophrenia but this very blurring of the separation? Whether the
>madness is symptomatic of coming to this realization and integrating it into
>the thought process to too great an extreme or a method by which some
>involuntarily realize the connection is something that I would love to see
>discussed here.
Shoot. Let us have it.
Capt. RE
amor...@geocities.com
> But now I'm intrigued by something else; and since this newsgroup seems to
> have an interest in lists, I'd like to know something: How many famous
> personages *have* gone "insane"? (And I don't mean famous for going insane
> in the first place.)
>
> I guess we have Nietzsche and Van Gogh. I can also name:
>
> --the emperor Caligula
> --Nebuca...Nebbucha...That king from the Bible who went around eating grass
> --The poet Jarrell...wait, and Berryman...and Plath...and Sexton...and Crane
>
> Can't think of any others.
Nijinsky
Tesla
what is more interesting, is whether or not 'insanity' can be
an un-intentional side-effect of various methods of
self-inquiry / meditation / ecstatic prayer.
anecdotal evidence from 18th century American Christian Revivals, and
20th century cultic organizations such as Scientology argue that it is,
in fact, possible.
it is no coincidence that Nietzsche studied the Dionysus cult practices,
and then himself succumbed to a pathological form of ecstasy
B.A.
evo...@pacbell.net wrote in message ...
>But now I'm intrigued by something else; and since this newsgroup seems to
>have an interest in lists, I'd like to know something: How many famous
>personages *have* gone "insane"? (And I don't mean famous for going insane
>in the first place.)
>
>I guess we have Nietzsche and Van Gogh. I can also name:
>
>--the emperor Caligula
>--Nebuca...Nebbucha...That king from the Bible who went around eating grass
>--The poet Jarrell...wait, and Berryman...and Plath...and Sexton...and
Crane
>
>Can't think of any others.
>
Nebukadnezar?
Silvia Plath? If you mean her I don't believe she was insane, or am I wrong
here?
BTW Two other fine examples are Johnny Weismuller and Ronald Reagan.
regards BA
evo...@pacbell.net
In article <892143994.18237...@news.demon.nl>, "B.A."
<Boud...@btgm.demonix.nl> wrote:
> evo...@pacbell.net wrote in message ...
> >But now I'm intrigued by something else; and since this newsgroup seems to
> >have an interest in lists, I'd like to know something: How many famous
> >personages *have* gone "insane"? (And I don't mean famous for going insane
> >in the first place.)
> >--The poet Jarrell...wait, and Berryman...and Plath...and Sexton...and
> Crane
> Silvia Plath? If you mean her I don't believe she was insane, or am I wrong
> here?
> BTW Two other fine examples are Johnny Weismuller and Ronald Reagan.
Well, if you're going to include Ronald Reagan who has Alzheimer's, then I
can include Plath who was suffering from severe paranoia, etc., just
before she died.
HeWhoGetsSlapped
B.A. wrote:
> BTW Two other fine examples are Johnny Weismuller and Ronald Reagan.
Reagan went mad? Alzheimer's yes, but that is not madness.
What evidence do you have to support this (runaway politically paranoid
imagination based excuses do not count...facts, mate,facts)
bunbury
amor...@geocities.com
ha...@megsinet.net (Routledge) wrote:
>
> You'll suffer a fool, I hope, if I have another run at posting to the group.
go for it! the more fools the merrier! :)
> The first post I made, in which I called for a discussion of the purpose and
> morality of government, was met with a reply which I read as bitter and
> sarcastic.
sounds like typical usenet dialog mode, not to worry.
> This discussion of Nietzsche's madness intrigues me. I have long been
> interested in the possible connection between madness and art and
> enlightenment.
yep, the corollary is that 'common sense consensual sanity' is an
adaptive mode of consciousness intended to handle survival and
reproductive tasks by shielding us from the more florid nature of reality.
> There is a book of papers entitled Transcendence and Mature Thought in
> Adulthood-The Further Reaches of Adult Development, and in it a paper
entitled
> Rare Forms of Self-Understanding in Mature Adults. In the paper, Susanne R.
> Cook-Greuter examines transcendentalistic self-awareness through a large
> sampling of sentence completion tests.
>
> The answers coming from those who are most notably aware have this in
common:
> they blur the barrier between self and the world around them. In effect,
these
> highly intelligent and aware people viewed themselves as the contents of a
> small box barely drawn within a broader, changing system.
yep.
> So much as that is no surprise. I would be hard pressed to argue that a
strong
> and important part of understanding the self wouldn't be understanding that
> the self is but a part of a larger system. Part and parcel of that is the
> understanding that there is only a vague and abstract separation between the
> two.
>
> What is schizophrenia but this very blurring of the separation? Whether the
> madness is symptomatic of coming to this realization and integrating it into
> the thought process to too great an extreme or a method by which some
> involuntarily realize the connection is something that I would love to see
> discussed here.
Yes, the blurring of the separation seems to me to be a symptom, as you
say. Where all phenomena, even trivial incidents, have personal significance,
and are seen as echoing our own thoughts etc. Just as Nietzsche experienced
before his final break, where he thought all the shopkeepers were reading his
mind.
Whether or not this phase becomes madness, seems to me, to be how well
prepared we are to not 'cling' to our survival mode sense of identity,
I think we have to become firmly convinced intellectually of the
imaginary and arbitrary nature of identity, in order not to react
pathologically when it disappears.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The limits of my language are the limits of my world."
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein
this is an interesting quote relevant to the point you are
talking about. I would say that "The limits of my language
are the limits of our consensual common-sense world of ordinary sanity."
When language releases its hold on our mind, then the world limits
suddenly get much larger (and perhaps scarier/weirder too). And how
does language release its hold on us? Ye Olde seven day meditation retreat
is one way, cutting off each thought as it arises and returning attention
to the breath over and over and over and over, until the language cortex
gets exhausted and gives up the ghost. Then ... watch out!
cheers
amor...@geocities.com
I found an interesting account of one person's experience of
neurological transformation via meditation, which was posted on
a support group of ex-siddha-yoga folks, relevant to this thread perhaps:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/kunpsych.txt
The person feels they have been 'damaged' in that ordinary
consciousness is no longer possible for them. They have resorted
to science to try and account for what has happened to them.
Nietzsche would have some interesting points to make regarding
resorting to science to reductionalistically 'explain' metanoia.
This sort of thing is happening with the 'victims' of Scientology
induced psychosis also.
Will meditation be illegal soon? I have heard some argue that it will
be the 'evil drug' of the next decade. We have got to understand
this sort of pathology quickly, so as to prevent such cases of real damage.
IMHO, the devotional aspects of religion are part of the answer.
An approach detached from love and devotion like Scientology and
Transcendental Meditation (and Nietzsche?) are going to cause
more cases of 'damage' such as this person recounts.
cheers,
'mo 'mo fati: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756
"Our way is just to ride on the train.
If we look too closely at the rails, we will get dizzy."
-Suzuki Roshi 'Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind'
Wayne Freno
: Silvia Plath? If you mean her I don't believe she was insane, or am I
wrong here?
She may have been insane or just depressed, any way she killed herself.
: BTW Two other fine examples are Johnny Weismuller and Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was surely one of the most brutal dictators in history.
--
end soundbite
Frank A.S.
Wayne Freno wrote in message <6gpoim$1...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>...
>Ronald Reagan was surely one of the most brutal dictators in history.
>
Uhh? Please elaborate.
amor...@geocities.com
nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) wrote:
> Also, notably, Foucault's studies of madness, prison, and punishment might be
> appropiate here. I know some about Foucault's theories, but would in no way
> qualify as an expert.
I know nothing about Foucault's theories, but I have heard one amusing story
in one of his bio's, about his first LSD trip, during the early 70's?, he
was invited to lecture at an American west coast univ, and the inviter
offered him LSD which he hadnt yet tried and he was quite wary of doing it,
asking all kinds of questions and worrying about madness etc, then took it in
Death Valley and spent a night communing with his inner whatever, and when he
got back to France, trashed his almost-finished book on sexuality and started
all over again based on the cleaning out of his preconceptions effected by
the sacrament.
What amused me was the part about starting over on his book. If only
more academics would clean house before grinding out their tomes!
(dont quote me on this fable, as I am probably mis-remembering it ... sorry)
RW
What interests me more than the historical
figures is insanity in the here and now.
If Neitzsche 'embraced his madness,' for example,
and that is interesting or inspiring, how is that
philosophy practiced? Can we see it in practice
now? e.g. in the life of Clinton or Meatloaf or
Chomsky or... someone lesser known ???
What does it look like, how do you identify it,
how is it different from plain-old-madness?
RW
Lars Ahlström
I'll give You some madness:
1. If You hate Your enemy, he will become stronger over time.
If You forgive him, and refer to that he is not aware of his evil, he
will become weaker over time.
Weakened, the natural force will take care of him sooner.
2. The only time You can enjoy a Porche after being a owner for half a
year, and used to it, is when somebody sees You driving it. But
Your former friends wont' appreciate their role.
If You think "-Well I like to drive fast", remeber that it is something
You get use to, too.
A $100000 waste caused by dumbness - ring any bells?
3. The only way to gain success in Your life is to stop desiring money and
power. Then You get it.
4. Narcotics and alcohol are drugs that make You addicted over time, and
finally destroyed.
So are desire for food.
So are desire for excitement.
So are desire for speed.
5. Fear of the unknown is the origin of all negative pain.
To be really brave is to disconnect that fear from Your system.
Mad, ey? :o)
Regards,
Phil O'Sofer
RW <ima...@globalserve.net> skrev i inlägg
<6h5f6c$ppo$1...@titan.globalserve.net>...
RW
Lars Ahlström wrote in message
<01bd6a30$32142f40$02cc...@win95.swipnet.se>...
>I'll give You some madness:
>5. Fear of the unknown is the origin of all negative pain.
> To be really brave is to disconnect that fear from Your system.
I follow you until you get to point #5. Where to begin... Have you seen
the films 'Crash' or 'Pulp Fiction?' They portray a sort of embrace of
madness, to be sure. But a madness which (I think) is born of precisely the
kind of disconnection you speak of. Not disconnection from some petty
neurotic fear or social imposition, but from fears which are more bodily,
e.g. what you feel when you discover a crouching lion behind you in the
bush, or what the infant feels when her mother screams and slams the door
and never returns. Sadly, I don't think we have as much control over
'negative pain' as you suggest, although it may be comforting to think that
we do. Bravery as I see it has more to do with facing this reality without
the illusion that it is within the sphere of our control.
gracie & hula
People make a lot of Nietzsche's madness, which is really a drag. With
the exception of "Ecce Homo", none of Nietzsche's books were written
while he was "mad". The idea that his works were the works of someone
insane is not only not supportable by the facts, but is part of the
tedious romanticized myth that surrounds Nietzsche. Most of which was a
creation of others - including his sister.
Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
hulahoop
Grant Gigee
In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
madness. Note the word descent. It would seem that once one like
Nietzsche reaches madness, the game is over. Cash in the chips, pay the
debts, and go home. With neither a functional perception of "reality"
nor a state of mind commonly found among people, very little of use
would seem to be produced.
just IMHO, obviously.
gracie & hula wrote:
>
> People make a lot of Nietzsche's madness, which is really a drag. With
> the exception of "Ecce Homo", none of Nietzsche's books were written
> while he was "mad". The idea that his works were the works of someone
> insane is not only not supportable by the facts, but is part of the
> tedious romanticized myth that surrounds Nietzsche. Most of which was a
> creation of others - including his sister.
>
> Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
> of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
>
> hulahoop
--
Grant Gigee
thre...@mariahc.com
http://threegee.ml.org/~threegee
ICQ:5965207
amor...@geocities.com
Grant Gigee <sa...@the.north.pole> wrote:
>
> In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
> madness.
and return, IMHO, (as in shamanism)
> Note the word descent. It would seem that once one like
> Nietzsche reaches madness, the game is over.
most likely, but not necessarily, cf. Meher Baba, but it is true
that you can't go back,
> Cash in the chips, pay the
> debts, and go home. With neither a functional perception of "reality"
> nor a state of mind commonly found among people, very little of use
> would seem to be produced.
as far as quantifiable poundage of academic tomes, perhaps,
but other effects such as the blossoming of trees and the
fragrance of virtue that goes even against the wind,
is not to be discounted, IYKWIM
> just IMHO, obviously.
me too :)
>
> gracie & hula wrote:
> >
> > People make a lot of Nietzsche's madness, which is really a drag.
or ignore it as not a necessary consequence of his life and philosophy,
which is even more of a drag, but academically safer
> > With
> > the exception of "Ecce Homo", none of Nietzsche's books were written
> > while he was "mad".
granted, but his epistles of the three days post-epiphany might
well be worth his entire literary opus, as the ultimate triumph
of transformation that he predicted and sought
> > The idea that his works were the works of someone
> > insane is not only not supportable by the facts, but is part of the
> > tedious romanticized myth that surrounds Nietzsche.
is anyone claiming that? Kaufman debunks that pretty well in
preface to Ecce Homo, seeing it as a culmination of genius rather than
as a symptom of decline
> > Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
> > of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
yes, but look where it led _him_, how are we to take his works seriously
and avoid the same fate?
that is the question IMNSHO :)
cheers
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
L. Koene
In article <3543ED86...@the.north.pole>, Grant Gigee
<sa...@the.north.pole> wrote:
> In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
> madness.
Nonsense.
I guess you are not a psychologist.
> gracie & hula wrote:
> >
> > The idea that his works were the works of someone
> > insane is not only not supportable by the facts, but is part of the
> > tedious romanticized myth that surrounds Nietzsche.
~Nod~
Bart
--
for e-mail remove NO-SPAM.
http://huizen.dds.nl/~lkoene
amor...@geocities.com
> > In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
> > madness.
>
> Nonsense.
should have been qualified:
In psychological terms, (some particular kinds of) genius can be
described as the descent into (some particular kinds of) madness.
in particular, that kind of madness associated with kundalini 'awakening',
as discussed in "Kundalini, the Evolutionary Energy in Man" by Gopi Krishna.
this point is also argued in the massive book "Madness and Modernism"
which describes schizophrenia as having _some_ supra-normal aspects
(I am not denying there are many degenerative aspects as well).
----------
Here are some excerpts from David Farrell Krell's book 'Nietzsche a Novel'
He claims these are excerpted from the actual medical records at the
Jena Institute (fragments):
1. " Patient cooperates fully with examination procedures speaks
uninterruptedly during them-No proper awareness of his illness, feels
uncommonly well , elevated spirits...Also that he has had a number fo fits.
Throughout these too he has felt uncommonly well, elevated spirits,he would
love to have embraced and kissed everyone on the street...
2. " Jan 11 1889 talks confusedly, now and then accused himself of having
plunged others into misery."
3. " Jan 12 1889 When asked about his condition he replies that he feels
infinitely hale, that he could only express his condition in music"
------------
"Sing me a New Song,
the Earth is Transformed,
and all the Heavens sing for Joy"
F.N. to Peter Gast
L. Koene
> > > In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
> > > madness.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> should have been qualified:
>
> In psychological terms, (some particular kinds of) genius can be
> described as the descent into (some particular kinds of) madness.
Oh, the claim is getting thinner and thinner. Degeneration of the
theory. It would certainly help when you would give us a definition
of genius. Of course, one has some knowledge of the meaning of the
word genius, but when one wants to achieve something one has to be
more accurate.
> in particular, that kind of madness associated with kundalini 'awakening',
> as discussed in "Kundalini, the Evolutionary Energy in Man" by Gopi Krishna.
That is NO scientific reference.
> this point is also argued in the massive book "Madness and Modernism"
> which describes schizophrenia as having _some_ supra-normal aspects
> (I am not denying there are many degenerative aspects as well).
Please, be more original next time.
DOLBY
Let us remember that Nietzsche suffered and passed away a horrible and
prolonged death. A misery that today can be controlled and often cured my todays
antibiotics. VD was once the "Social Scourage," of the time, and dimentia was a
common symptom.. Has anyone noticed his hatered for the fair sex in his latter
diary entries?
gracie & hula wrote:
> RW wrote:
> >
> > Lars Ahlström wrote in message
> > <01bd6a30$32142f40$02cc...@win95.swipnet.se>...
> > >I'll give You some madness:
> > >5. Fear of the unknown is the origin of all negative pain.
> > > To be really brave is to disconnect that fear from Your system.
> >
> > I follow you until you get to point #5. Where to begin... Have you seen
> > the films 'Crash' or 'Pulp Fiction?' They portray a sort of embrace of
> > madness, to be sure. But a madness which (I think) is born of precisely the
> > kind of disconnection you speak of. Not disconnection from some petty
> > neurotic fear or social imposition, but from fears which are more bodily,
> > e.g. what you feel when you discover a crouching lion behind you in the
> > bush, or what the infant feels when her mother screams and slams the door
> > and never returns. Sadly, I don't think we have as much control over
> > 'negative pain' as you suggest, although it may be comforting to think that
> > we do. Bravery as I see it has more to do with facing this reality without
> > the illusion that it is within the sphere of our control.
>
> People make a lot of Nietzsche's madness, which is really a drag. With
> the exception of "Ecce Homo", none of Nietzsche's books were written
> while he was "mad". The idea that his works were the works of someone
> insane is not only not supportable by the facts, but is part of the
> tedious romanticized myth that surrounds Nietzsche. Most of which was a
> creation of others - including his sister.
>
> Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
> of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
>
> hulahoop
amor...@geocities.com
Hi, thanks for your interest in this fascinating topic!
lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> amor...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > > In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
> > > > madness.
> > > Nonsense.
> > should have been qualified:
> > In psychological terms, (some particular kinds of) genius can be
> > described as the descent into (some particular kinds of) madness.
>
> Oh, the claim is getting thinner and thinner. Degeneration of the
> theory. It would certainly help when you would give us a definition
> of genius.
Sure, glad to oblige, lucky for you I recently obtained a free dictionary
at the library swap shelves, so here it is:
Genius: [L. tutelary spirit] 1 pl genii: an attendant spirit of a
person or place; also: a person who influences another for good or evil
6: extra-ordinary intellectual power; a person having such power
> Of course, one has some knowledge of the meaning of the
> word genius, but when one wants to achieve something one has to be
> more accurate.
definitions are inevitably circular, and a sure route to madness, IMHO.
> > in particular, that kind of madness associated with kundalini 'awakening',
> > as discussed in "Kundalini, the Evolutionary Energy in Man" by Gopi
Krishna.
>
> That is NO scientific reference.
That is NO objection. The experience is reproducible,
appeals to scientistic dogma are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> > this point is also argued in the massive book "Madness and Modernism"
> > which describes schizophrenia as having _some_ supra-normal aspects
> > (I am not denying there are many degenerative aspects as well).
>
> Please, be more original next time.
Ok.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
amor...@geocities.com
DOLBY <nospamc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Let us remember that Nietzsche suffered and passed away a horrible and
> prolonged death.
True! So did Jesus! So did Buddha! So did Meher Baba! So what else is New?
This is exactly why Nietzsche referred to himself as 'the
crucified' in one of his last letters.
He knew that he had been sacrificed (for our benefit).
Georges Bataille has written of the implications of N's experience as
being pivotal for 20th century philosophy, 'On Nietzsche' - Georges Bataille
> A misery that today can be controlled and often cured my
todays
> antibiotics. VD was once the "Social Scourage," of the time, and dimentia
was a
> common symptom.
But, this is exactly the point. It is not at all established, or agreed,
that N. died of syphilitic dementia. This hypothesis has long been
discredited. See for example, "Dionysus, I Love You" by prof. Claudia
Crawford.
An alternative theory, is that Nietzsche's 'breakdown' is actually a
case of spiritual metanoia, known as God-Realization, studied by Meher
Baba and described in "The Wayfarers" by William Donkin.
Kundalini symptoms commonly precede such experiences of metanoia,
and Nietzsche's symptoms are classic kundalini. See, for example,
"Kundalini, Transcendence or Psychosis?" by Dr. Lee Sanella.
> > Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
> > of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
To ignore his experience of metanoia is to ignore his entire
philosophy and way of life. It was a consequence, not incidental.
What do we think he was talking about when he said 'man is a bridge
to the overman'? That there is some danger in crossing this bridge
he well knew, and described in the first chapter of Zarathustra.
HERE IS A/THE CHALLENGE OF THE 21st CENTURY:
I am willing to bet that if one pursues the following reading curriculum,
an understanding of Nietzsche's experience will become 'obvious' IMHO:
Thus Spake Zarathustra - Nietzsche
Genealogy of Morals - Nietzsche
Nietzsche - Ronald Hayman
On Nietzsche - Georges Bataille
The Wayfarers - William Donkin
Madness and Modernism - Sass
Dionysus I Love You - Claudia Crawford
Kundalini - Lee Sannella
Kundalini - Gopi Krishna
How to Meditate - LeShan
The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment - Golas
Quantum Mechanics and Experience - David Z Albert
Parallel Worlds - Fred Alan Wolf
"Sing me a New Song!
The Earth is Transformed,
And all the Heavens sing for Joy!"
-F.N.
amor...@geocities.com
BTW, not to beat a dead horse, not that anyone really
is interested in this, not that I am not just taking to myself :)
but ...
there is at least one other case similar to N's of a scholar's
metanoia-induced cessation of printed verbiage and transition into
meta-normal awareness and lack of interest in mortal's preoccupations
with money/food/sex/etc:
Thomas Aquinas
he was struck mid-sermon, and hung up his pen never finishing his last
book, check out the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Aquinas, they
describe him as experiencing a kind of dementia.
Amazing, huh? that even a great Catholic saint's experience of metanoia
would not be understood by his fellow Catholics.
cheers
"Religion is a defense against the religious experience."
-Jung
"Philosophy is a defense against the Philosophic experience."
-mo fati, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
Peter Schuttevaar
amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6icvbl$s4u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>DOLBY <nospamc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>To ignore his experience of metanoia is to ignore his entire
>philosophy and way of life. It was a consequence, not incidental.
>What do we think he was talking about when he said 'man is a bridge
>to the overman'? That there is some danger in crossing this bridge
>he well knew, and described in the first chapter of Zarathustra.
Hallelujah!
>HERE IS A/THE CHALLENGE OF THE 21st CENTURY:
Amen!
>"Sing me a New Song!
> The Earth is Transformed,
> And all the Heavens sing for Joy!"
>-F.N.
Huh? This is blasphemy!! F.N. did not write in English. Everyone knows
that F.N. can only be understood in his own sacred German language!!
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
ps:
I wonder what Nietzsche thinks about all his followers. He drinks a beer
with Jezus up there and they have a good laugh about it. I suspect, says
Jezus, that people are more interested in proving a piece of garment to be
my underwear than that they do something meaningfull with their lifes. Yes,
Friedrich says, I wish I was as old as you are, then I would be sure that my
underwear could never be found anymore!
amor...@geocities.com
"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Hallelujah!
If you have no real interest in this subject,
and nothing to contribute, then just say so.
oops, I guess you did, sorry.
> I wonder what Nietzsche thinks about all his followers.
maybe something like:
"I came into their world
and found them all drunk,
and no one thirsty to know,
no, not one."
or, maybe
"The laughter of fools
is like the crackling of
burning twigs under the pot."
or, maybe
"'we have discovered happiness',
they tell themselves,
and they blink."
or, maybe
"what matters their happiness?
it is poverty, filth, and
wretched contentment."
or, maybe
"sigh"
Peter Schuttevaar
amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6idmrq$tcg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hallelujah!
>
>If you have no real interest in this subject,
>and nothing to contribute, then just say so.
>oops, I guess you did, sorry.
I did not. Nietzsche is at the birth of my philosophical interest. I hold
him high. My contribution would be, to not distort his role in history by
mystifying the great man. And not to be overly creative in designing a
deity out of him.
>> I wonder what Nietzsche thinks about all his followers.
>
>maybe something like:
>
>"I came into their world
> and found them all drunk,
> and no one thirsty to know,
> no, not one."
This is what he thinks of his non-critical admirers, not of the critical
thinkers.
>or, maybe
>
>"The laughter of fools
> is like the crackling of
> burning twigs under the pot."
You amuse me.
>or, maybe
>
>"'we have discovered happiness',
> they tell themselves,
> and they blink."
This is what the pre-Socratic said also.
>or, maybe
>
>"what matters their happiness?
> it is poverty, filth, and
> wretched contentment."
Hegel said: I am not designed for happiness.
>or, maybe
>
>"sigh"
Nietzsche wouldn't have said that for sure.
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
ps: to search for meaning in a man's decline is like seeking meaning in the
death of Christ. It is the negation of what he was before his decline. It
is the negation of his life!!
Der Gott am Kreuze ist ein verhängnis des Lebens.
-- F. Nietzsche
(The God on the Cross is the crucifixion of life)
Tom Asquith
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 15:18:17 -0500, gracie & hula <byr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>People make a lot of Nietzsche's madness, which is really a drag. With
>the exception of "Ecce Homo", none of Nietzsche's books were written
>while he was "mad". The idea that his works were the works of someone
>insane is not only not supportable by the facts, but is part of the
>tedious romanticized myth that surrounds Nietzsche. Most of which was a
>creation of others - including his sister.
>
>Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
>of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
One idea that has been suggested regarding his madness was that it
was in fact a bit of play-acting on the part of Nietzsche. And
quite frankly, I have suspected that there is something to this.
For example, in two letters written by Overbeck (a colleague who
shared Nietzsche's passion for philology), there appears to
be some sort of suggestion that FN may have been faking it (call
it a form of modern performance art). Either way, it seems
nearly ironic that his descent into madness would so neatly
parallel what he thought was happening to society.
As for the allegation that "Ecce Homo" was the only item written
while he was in this mad or allegedly mad state, one can never
be too sure. Moreover, there are a couple of jottings that
were supposedly produced at this time (of course, we can never
be sure of just how genuine they really were). I'll leave the
issue of his sister's tampering (that well-worn chestnut)
for others to comment on.
Cheers,
Tom 'Nim' Asquith
*tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BARDOLPH: "Well met, Corporal Nim"
NIM: "Good Morrow, Lieutenant Bardolph."
BARDOLPH: "What, are Ensign Pistol and you friends yet?"
NIM: "For my part I care not. I say little, but when time shall
serve there shall be smiles--but that shall be as it may. I dare
not fight, but I shall wink and hold out mine iron. It is a simple
one, but what though? It will toast cheeze, and it will endure cold,
as another man's sword will--and there's an end."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Koene
> Hi, thanks for your interest in this fascinating topic!
>
> lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> > amor...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > > > In psychological terms, genius can be described as the descent into
> > > > > madness.
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > should have been qualified:
> > > In psychological terms, (some particular kinds of) genius can be
> > > described as the descent into (some particular kinds of) madness.
> >
> > Oh, the claim is getting thinner and thinner. Degeneration of the
> > theory. It would certainly help when you would give us a definition
> > of genius.
>
> Sure, glad to oblige, lucky for you I recently obtained a free dictionary
> at the library swap shelves, so here it is:
>
> Genius: [L. tutelary spirit] 1 pl genii: an attendant spirit of a
> person or place; also: a person who influences another for good or evil
> 6: extra-ordinary intellectual power; a person having such power
So, from this definition (extra-ordinary intellectual power;
a person having such power) follows no connection with madness.
> > Of course, one has some knowledge of the meaning of the
> > word genius, but when one wants to achieve something one has to be
> > more accurate.
>
> definitions are inevitably circular, and a sure route to madness, IMHO.
Nonsense.
> > > in particular, that kind of madness associated with kundalini 'awakening',
> > > as discussed in "Kundalini, the Evolutionary Energy in Man" by Gopi
> Krishna.
> >
> > That is NO scientific reference.
>
> That is NO objection. The experience is reproducible,
> appeals to scientistic dogma are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Ha! What has kundalini to do with Nietzsche?
What kind of madness is associated with kundalini
awakening? You have to supply the evidence for
it is your claim.
amor...@geocities.com
> Ha! What has kundalini to do with Nietzsche?
Read about the Dionysian ecstasy rites of which Nietzsche
was familiar. See, for example, 'The God of Ecstasy' by Evans.
> What kind of madness is associated with kundalini
> awakening?
In the initial phases, various pathologies such as:
delusions, objective synchronicities, intense sensations of 'bodily energy',
loss of ego identity, out-of-body experience, near-death-experience,
inability to relate to 'ordinary phenomena', lack of interest in
hygiene, food, sex, discourse, etc,
all more or less DSM-IV'ed under 'dissociative disorder' or something.
Read 'The Kundalini Experience' by Dr. Lee Sanella
> You have to supply the evidence for it is your claim.
Ok!
The evidence would involve me asserting a familiarity with the 'Abyss'
of which Nietzsche spoke. Since this is inevitably 'subjective',
from a CSICOP-Skeptic point of view, dialog is most likely
futile. But I am happy to try.
First, though, could you humor me if I ask why Nietzsche interests
a Skeptic?
Do you perhaps find comfort in his 'God is Dead' observation?
Do you wonder if the corollary 'God was once Not Dead' is true or not?
Are you uncomfortable with Nietzsche's final statements
affirming his identity with God and the Crucified?
amor...@geocities.com
lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
>
> >
> > Genius: [L. tutelary spirit] 1 pl genii: an attendant spirit of a
> > person or place; also: a person who influences another for good or evil
> > 6: extra-ordinary intellectual power; a person having such power
>
> So, from this definition (extra-ordinary intellectual power;
> a person having such power) follows no connection with madness.
depends on the definition of 'intellectual'
> > definitions are inevitably circular, and a sure route to madness, IMHO.
>
> Nonsense.
Q.E.D. :)
amor...@geocities.com
>"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> My contribution would be, to not distort his role in history by
> mystifying the great man. And not to be overly creative in designing a
> deity out of him.
Ok, agreed.
I am only trying to take Nietzsche's own word for what happened to
him. Around Jan 6 1889, he writes all his friends and tells them
he is now God, the Earth is transformed, and he has been Crucified.
These are his own words. So, do we take him seriously or not?
That is the question, IMHO.
"I would much rather be a Basel professor than God."
"At bottom I am every name in history"
"Are we content? I am the god who created this caricature."
"Sing me a new song, the world is transfigured and all the heavens
sing for joy."
(see Portable Nietzsche pg 685ff)
For us to discount these statements because he is 'mad', is to disrespect
his entire life in philosophy. His philosophy, after all,
was about personal transformation. He just rediscovered
the origins of religion as the transformation of a mortal
into a sage/prophet/god-realizer. Unfortunately, in Nietzsche's case,
the transformation was too deep, and he couldnt come back.
Evolution aint always perfect, too bad for us.
And, what does he mean by referring to himself as 'The Crucified'?
He well knew what the Cross meant to Jesus' disciples: it was an
embarassment and humiliation that they struggled with for years
before discovering the meaning in it. Likewise, Nietzsche's
madness is an embarassment and humiliation for us hyper-rational
neo-post-moderns, so for us, he fulfills the role of 'The Crucified'.
Our projections of nobility on him are horribly parodied in his
transfiguration into the worst affront to rationality: madness.
What right do we have to compare his death with his philosophy?
A philosopher, after all, has the occupational hazard of
having their life and death compared to their philosophy.
Of course, the epitome of this is Socrates, whose death was the
culmination of his philosophy.
Personally, I used to think that according to this criterion,
Nietzsche was an abject failure as a philosopher. He never
lived up to his own philosophy, never even overcame his own
ressentiment.
But only recently, after my own
paltry studies of the Upanishads, which profoundly influenced
Nietzsche via Schopenhauer, did I change my mind and decide
that perhaps he acheived the triumph of affirming the 'Tat Tvam Asi'
spoken of in the Upanishads.
Anyway, none of this is original or even controversial,
I am just parroting ideas from Claudia Crawford's
book 'To Nietzsche: Dionysus, I Love you', pub 1995, in which
she summarizes the reasons why syphilis has not been firmly
established as a diagnosis, in the chapter 'Madness, Medical Discourse,
or Script?' pg 163 ff.
"For [Karl] Jaspers, Nietzsche's madness is disgraceful ...
But no, the madness was a culmination, a celebration, the supreme
symbol of victory."
pg 165
My only problem with prof Crawford's analysis is she then
theorizes Nietzsche's madness was an intentional playful hoax!
This is so incredible, just goes to show how far removed
academics get from the realities of metanoia and spiritual experience.
An especially revealing episode is described on pg 2 in which
Overbeck listens to Nietzsche singing 'The Gondola' song in the
train at night as Overbeck takes him back to be institutionalized.
"lately I stood at the bridge
in the brown night.
From afar there came a song:
a golden drop, it swelled across the trembling...
sorry, gotta go
bye
Peter Schuttevaar
amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6iikjr$ibc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>I am only trying to take Nietzsche's own word for what happened to
>him. Around Jan 6 1889, he writes all his friends and tells them
>he is now God, the Earth is transformed, and he has been Crucified.
>These are his own words. So, do we take him seriously or not?
>That is the question, IMHO.
We take him serious, but not literally.
snip
> Likewise, Nietzsche's
>madness is an embarassment and humiliation for us hyper-rational
>neo-post-moderns, so for us, he fulfills the role of 'The Crucified'.
>Our projections of nobility on him are horribly parodied in his
>transfiguration into the worst affront to rationality: madness.
Just as we do not expect a wise man to live forever, we cannot demand of him
to never go mad or to never attract nasty illnesses.
>Personally, I used to think that according to this criterion,
>Nietzsche was an abject failure as a philosopher. He never
>lived up to his own philosophy, never even overcame his own
>ressentiment.
>But only recently, after my own
>paltry studies of the Upanishads, which profoundly influenced
>Nietzsche via Schopenhauer, did I change my mind and decide
>that perhaps he acheived the triumph of affirming the 'Tat Tvam Asi'
>spoken of in the Upanishads.
You think you used the wrong criterion to judge him then. I think you are
using the same criterion to judge him now. You only changed your perception
of what you thought of as "embarrassing" and made it into something that can
live up to your criterion (or expectations). I would rather have you
abandon your expectations. A great man is not carved out of marble
according to the blueprint of your moral statue, he's of flesh and blood.
He's doomed to pass away and die weakened. As you and I are!
snip (the Crawford stuff)
>"lately I stood at the bridge
> in the brown night.
> From afar there came a song:
> a golden drop, it swelled across the trembling...
Ein brunnen erfärht nur sehr langsam was in seine tiefe fiel.
( A spring only very slowly experiences what fell into its dept )
-- F. Nietzsche
L. Koene
In article <6iihv9$etq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, amor...@geocities.com wrote:
[kundalini]
> Read about the Dionysian ecstasy rites of which Nietzsche
> was familiar.
I do not see a link between kundalini and Dionysian ecstacy
rites.
> > What kind of madness is associated with kundalini
> > awakening?
>
> In the initial phases, various pathologies such as:
> delusions, objective synchronicities, intense sensations of 'bodily energy',
> loss of ego identity, out-of-body experience, near-death-experience,
> inability to relate to 'ordinary phenomena', lack of interest in
> hygiene, food, sex, discourse, etc,
> all more or less DSM-IV'ed under 'dissociative disorder' or something.
> Read 'The Kundalini Experience' by Dr. Lee Sanella
Well, I am familiar with yoga. Otherwise, you can explain.
> > You have to supply the evidence for it is your claim.
>
> Ok!
>
> The evidence would involve me asserting a familiarity with the 'Abyss'
> of which Nietzsche spoke. Since this is inevitably 'subjective',
> from a CSICOP-Skeptic point of view, dialog is most likely
> futile. But I am happy to try.
Abyss, in which context?
> First, though, could you humor me if I ask why Nietzsche interests
> a Skeptic?
~smiles~ A small biographical note:
I started reading Nietzsche when I was still at high school.
I was 16 years old. In the years following I read most of
his books. I found it fascinating.
In a way Nietzsche is a sceptic, but scepticism is
a rather flexible term. In philosophy it is much better to
call skeptics in the CSICOP-sense naturalists.
> Do you perhaps find comfort in his 'God is Dead' observation?
No.
How can one? The Gay Science states 'We have killed him (i.e. God)
- You and I!' That does not seem comforting to me.
BTW, Hegel already noted in 1802 that 'God is dead' is the feeling
on which religion in modern time is based.
> Do you wonder if the corollary 'God was once Not Dead' is true or not?
No. I think the interpretation is that the concept god is a
dead one. This also implies that the concept has been alive.
> Are you uncomfortable with Nietzsche's final statements
> affirming his identity with God and the Crucified?
No.
-- identity with God I never heard, with Dionysos and the
Crucified: Yes.
Paul Ransom Erickson
It's good to see someone talking about Nietzsche's insanity as
connected to his thought -- and not at all in a purely negative way.
I'd thought I was alone about that...
I'll have to read those books -- thanks!
Paul
amor...@geocities.com
> >Better to take his work at face value and leave the myth making crap out
> >of it. Hard to do, I know. But better.
Nietzsche loved myths, he lived the myth of the labyrinth, the myth
of Ariadne, the myth of Dionysus, and finally the myth of Icarus.
He was the first one to make a myth out of his own life,
he started the whole 'myth-making crap' by his own declarations:
'I am God, the Earth is Transfigured, I am The Crucified.'
mad? heh.
> One idea that has been suggested regarding his madness was that it
> was in fact a bit of play-acting on the part of Nietzsche.
fyi, Philosophy Prof Claudia Crawford wrote an entire book on this:
"To Nietzsche: Dionysus, I Love You! Ariadne."
pg 194 summarizes the four 'standard' theories of N's madness:
1. overwork plus drug abuse (chlorohydrate)
2. syphilis contracted in 1866 1867
3. inherited (from his father)
4. inevitable result of his philosophy
It is interesting to me that none of these theories
takes seriously the well-known cases of religious
transformation well-documented in the literature of mystics.
Nietzsche lived the life of a renunciate ascetic monk,
practicing physical and mental austerities, it is no
wonder then that he was visited with a religious experience
of god-realization.
> As for the allegation that "Ecce Homo" was the only item written
> while he was in this mad or allegedly mad state, one can never
> be too sure.
the 'allegedly mad state' has a definite date, and a known
precipitating event (the flogged horse), before which he
was merely manic. The only writings coming from the mad state
are his letters of Jan 3-6 1889.
> Moreover, there are a couple of jottings that
> were supposedly produced at this time (of course, we can never
> be sure of just how genuine they really were).
not sure why you say that? The authorship of his letters of January 1889
are not controversial at all from what I read.
Paul Ransom Erickson
On Sun, 03 May 1998 14:53:13 -0600, amor...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> Ha! What has kundalini to do with Nietzsche?
>
>Read about the Dionysian ecstasy rites of which Nietzsche
>was familiar. See, for example, 'The God of Ecstasy' by Evans.
>
>> What kind of madness is associated with kundalini
>> awakening?
>
>In the initial phases, various pathologies such as:
>delusions, objective synchronicities, intense sensations of 'bodily energy',
>loss of ego identity, out-of-body experience, near-death-experience,
>inability to relate to 'ordinary phenomena', lack of interest in
>hygiene, food, sex, discourse, etc,
>all more or less DSM-IV'ed under 'dissociative disorder' or something.
>Read 'The Kundalini Experience' by Dr. Lee Sanella
I would be thankful if you would explain what Kundalini is, or point
me towards a good web site. I think I might have experienced it -- or
something close. Ecstasy, intensified senses, seemingly-complete
awareness of internal bodily processes, contact with what I identified
as a Jungian anima, apparent ability to mentally order my cat
around(!), followed by a few days of mild psychosis... Does that
sound similar? I tend to think psychiatric models of psychosis are
laughably -- perhaps partially intentionally? -- simplistic: something
on the order of saying that being in love is a hormonal imbalance...
>> You have to supply the evidence for it is your claim.
>
>Ok!
>
>The evidence would involve me asserting a familiarity with the 'Abyss'
>of which Nietzsche spoke. Since this is inevitably 'subjective',
>from a CSICOP-Skeptic point of view, dialog is most likely
>futile. But I am happy to try.
I believe I know the abyss as well, but wheron one cannot speak,
thereon one must remain silent.
Paul
Grant Gigee
Question for you:
Is there any way in particular to distinguish Kundalini gone goofy from
Bipolar Disorder? Or do you think they are the same?
I'm familiar with both, but I'm not sure how to recognize the
differences in others, like Nietzsche.
Paul Ransom Erickson
On Mon, 04 May 1998 08:51:38 -0400, Grant Gigee <sa...@the.north.pole>
wrote:
>Question for you:
>Is there any way in particular to distinguish Kundalini gone goofy from
>Bipolar Disorder? Or do you think they are the same?
>I'm familiar with both, but I'm not sure how to recognize the
>differences in others, like Nietzsche.
Does bipolar psychosis tend to result in near-permanent
disorientation? I had the idea that it was more a matter of the manic
phase getting so out of control that it became delusional, etc, but
that afterwards the psychosis went away.
But I _do_ wonder about the same question in my own case...
Paul
Grant Gigee
IME, when left be, bipolar doesn't lead to permanent 'psychosis'. It
can be dormant, with the person staying mostly stable in one phase
(generally the middle) for even years at a time. But I have no idea
what a lifetime of repression might do. Especially if combined with a
'religious' experience.
I have no idea what really happened to Nietzsche, but suspect Kundalini
is the best answer, so far. I was just wondering if there are
characteristic signs that point to one or the other.
amor...@geocities.com
pa...@easynet.co.uk (Paul Ransom Erickson) wrote:
>
> >Read 'The Kundalini Experience' by Dr. Lee Sanella
>
> I would be thankful if you would explain what Kundalini is, or point
> me towards a good web site.
Hi! sure, here are a few:
http://www.dyc.org/ThePath.htm
http://www.inetworld.com/lodpress/Kundalini.html
http://magnet.mwci.net/mall/tat/kundalini/index.html
http://www.execpc.com/~libra/awaken.html
(this last one has a pointer to a discussion-group mailing list also)
also, i have plagiarized a bunch of stuff on my own web site:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
such as:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/kundal.txt
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/kunseiz.txt
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/kunexp.txt
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/kuntina.txt
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/kunpsych.txt
there are many good books also, such as
"Spiritual Emergency"
"Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality: A
pathway to Growth & Healing". by Philip St. Romain,
Dr. Yvonne Kason's book "A Farther Shore",
talks a lot about K., and other related things. its perfect for the
kundalini-beginner.
the book "Energies of Transformation" by Bonnie Greenwell has tons
of information in it about differentiating kundalini from other states.
the best book I have seen is:
"Kundalini Awakening, A Gentle
Guide to Chakra Activation and Spritual Growth" by john selby.
> I think I might have experienced it -- or
> something close. Ecstasy, intensified senses, seemingly-complete
> awareness of internal bodily processes, contact with what I identified
> as a Jungian anima, apparent ability to mentally order my cat
> around(!), followed by a few days of mild psychosis... Does that
> sound similar?
yep. some of the 'preliminary' symptoms anyway, probably not a real
'arising' though, (lucky for you!). so if you ever undertake a
spiritual practice such as martial arts or meditation or whatever, be a little
more careful than the average person.
'dont fight it and dont force it' - is the best advice i've heard.
Please note that not all kundalini is pathological, some people
have very pleasant experiences of awakening without any trauma at all.
It seems to help to have some religious context to understand it,
as Holy Spirit or Ruach, or whatever, so that one doesnt get too frightened
and start to resist it if it wants to arise. (resistance is futile! :)
> I tend to think psychiatric models of psychosis are
> laughably -- perhaps partially intentionally? -- simplistic: something
> on the order of saying that being in love is a hormonal imbalance...
yeah, especially these recent 'discoveries' of a 'god-circuit' in the
the brain! what a display of idiot-savant scientism.
like saying the 'language-circuit' 'explains' Shakespeare.
take care
amor...@geocities.com
> > Read about the Dionysian ecstasy rites of which Nietzsche
> > was familiar.
>
> rites.
why not?
BTW, I was referring to the inner experience,
not the outer cultural ritual aspects.
cheers
amor...@geocities.com
"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6iikjr$ibc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
>
> >I am only trying to take Nietzsche's own word for what happened to
> >him. Around Jan 6 1889, he writes all his friends and tells them
> >he is now God, the Earth is transformed, and he has been Crucified.
> >These are his own words. So, do we take him seriously or not?
> >That is the question, IMHO.
>
> We take him serious, but not literally.
ok. but it would help a little if you could elaborate on this aphorism :)
How do we take his declarations seriously but not literally?
How do we do this without being patronizing to him?
Give me an example.
> You only changed your perception
> of what you thought of as "embarrassing" and made it into something that can
> live up to your criterion (or expectations). I would rather have you
> abandon your expectations.
ok, I am willing to acknowledge that I might change my mind in the future!
"Do not search for the Truth, merely cease to cherish opinions."
> A great man is not carved out of marble
> according to the blueprint of your moral statue, he's of flesh and blood.
> He's doomed to pass away and die weakened. As you and I are!
hey, come on, lets remember our Socrates: 'if you think this body of
Socrates that is dying, is Socrates himself dying, think again'.
There is an alternative to 'passing away and dying weakened', as Nietzsche
demonstrated for us: liberation through god-realization. This is his
rediscovery of the perennial Good News!
"Sing me a New Song!
The Earth is Transfigured,
and the Heavens Sing for Joy!"
-F.N.
cheers
mo fati: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
Grant Gigee
you have such a dull view on life. what about Nietzsche appeals to you?
more than he is a dead white guy, I hope.
Peter Schuttevaar wrote:
>
> amor...@geocities.com wrote
[SNIP]
> >Give me an example.
>
> >"Sing me a New Song!
> Describe to me the world in different terms (for I cannot see it for
> myself anymore)
>
> > The Earth is Transfigured,
> I cannot find meaning in the world anymore.
>
> > and the Heavens Sing for Joy!"
> And I believe that others (you who can sing me this new song) are > still in contact with that world.
>
> >There is an alternative to 'passing away and dying weakened', as > >Nietzsche demonstrated for us: liberation through god-realization. > >This is his rediscovery of the perennial Good News!
>
> I am realising God all day long, although I am not sure if that would > meet your criterion for what God is.
Grant Gigee
It amuses me when skeptics like yourself talk about scientific
methodology, yet are only parroting the words of others. amorfati has
presented both theory and evidence, thus fulfilling your requirements of
him. You have done neither, instead hiding behind the authority of past
ideas. Please step forward with your claim and evidence so that we may
judge your words.
L. Koene wrote:
>
> It is your idea. You see a link, I do not. So you have to
> explain (not me). And please, prove your case (or make it
> plausible) by means of Nietzsche quotes.
> (After all, this is a newsgroup about Nietzsche, not about
> kundalini yoga or Zarathustra's sister.). Where does he refer
> to "inner experience of Dionysian ecstacy"? Where does he speak
> of kundalini? I think he does not.
>
> And if there *would* be a link, explain me why you
> think that is interesting. What are its implications?
> Why do you think it is meaningful, important?
Peter Schuttevaar
amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6il9vq$qa6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>ok. but it would help a little if you could elaborate on this aphorism :)
>How do we take his declarations seriously but not literally?
>How do we do this without being patronizing to him?
>Give me an example.
>"Sing me a New Song!
Describe to me the world in different terms (for I cannot see it for myself
anymore)
> The Earth is Transfigured,
I cannot find meaning in the world anymore.
> and the Heavens Sing for Joy!"
And I believe that others (you who can sing me this new song) are still in
contact with that world.
>There is an alternative to 'passing away and dying weakened', as Nietzsche
>demonstrated for us: liberation through god-realization. This is his
>rediscovery of the perennial Good News!
I am realising God all day long, although I am not sure if that would meet
your criterion for what God is.
Regards,
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hage
pp...@xs4all.nl
L. Koene
> lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> >
> > amor...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> > [kundalini]
> > > Read about the Dionysian ecstasy rites of which Nietzsche
> > > was familiar.
> > I do not see a link between kundalini and Dionysian ecstacy
> > rites.
> why not?
> BTW, I was referring to the inner experience,
> not the outer cultural ritual aspects.
It is your idea. You see a link, I do not. So you have to
explain (not me). And please, prove your case (or make it
plausible) by means of Nietzsche quotes.
(After all, this is a newsgroup about Nietzsche, not about
kundalini yoga or Zarathustra's sister.). Where does he refer
to "inner experience of Dionysian ecstacy"? Where does he speak
of kundalini? I think he does not.
And if there *would* be a link, explain me why you
think that is interesting. What are its implications?
Why do you think it is meaningful, important?
Bart
Paul Ransom Erickson
On Mon, 04 May 1998 15:11:32 -0600, amor...@geocities.com wrote:
>yep. some of the 'preliminary' symptoms anyway, probably not a real
>'arising' though, (lucky for you!). so if you ever undertake a
>spiritual practice such as martial arts or meditation or whatever, be a little
>more careful than the average person.
Careful... I'm afraid I'm at a point where I have to live dangerously
and experimentally -- otherwise I might as well bury myself right now.
If there's a sword over my head, let it fall: I'm not about to
shuffle my feet through life. That doesn't necessarily mean I can't
be careful -- it just means I'm going to do what I'm going to do,
reguardless.
>'dont fight it and dont force it' - is the best advice i've heard.
>
>Please note that not all kundalini is pathological,
Depends what cave you're in.
>some people
>have very pleasant experiences of awakening without any trauma at all.
>It seems to help to have some religious context to understand it,
>as Holy Spirit or Ruach, or whatever, so that one doesnt get too frightened
>and start to resist it if it wants to arise. (resistance is futile! :)
I try to compare my experiences to others' that seem similar, in order
to get a vague idea of what I can expect. But in light of my present
"intellectual ethics" I can't let myself sigh and say "ahh, so
_that's_ what it is." But that's a simplistic way of putting it,
since I also try to enter completely into each paradigm I run across,
making a point to study it and get a grasp of it. I guess the idea is
to grow a new root to plant firmly in each country I discover, without
fully identifying with anything.
I try not to resist things -- not even resistance, if I resist...
>> I tend to think psychiatric models of psychosis are
>> laughably -- perhaps partially intentionally? -- simplistic: something
>> on the order of saying that being in love is a hormonal imbalance...
>
>yeah, especially these recent 'discoveries' of a 'god-circuit' in the
>the brain! what a display of idiot-savant scientism.
>like saying the 'language-circuit' 'explains' Shakespeare.
>
>take care
likewise,
Paul
L. Koene
In article <354E66BD...@the.north.pole>, Grant Gigee
<thre...@mariahc.com> wrote:
> It amuses me when skeptics like yourself talk about scientific
> methodology, yet are only parroting the words of others.
Oh, this has been written before? Can you say where?
That would be cool, copies of me in the USA!!
Bart
> L. Koene wrote:
> >
> > It is your idea. You see a link, I do not. So you have to
> > explain (not me). And please, prove your case (or make it
> > plausible) by means of Nietzsche quotes.
> > (After all, this is a newsgroup about Nietzsche, not about
> > kundalini yoga or Zarathustra's sister.). Where does he refer
> > to "inner experience of Dionysian ecstacy"? Where does he speak
> > of kundalini? I think he does not.
> >
> > And if there *would* be a link, explain me why you
> > think that is interesting. What are its implications?
> > Why do you think it is meaningful, important?
--
Peter Schuttevaar
Grant Gigee wrote in <354E5FEA...@the.north.pole>...
>you have such a dull view on life. what about Nietzsche appeals to you?
>more than he is a dead white guy, I hope.
I think of this question as dull. Sing me a new song, for if you ask me in
this terms, my mind cannot understand what it is: a statement or a question?
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl
ps: what do you like about Nietzsche, that he is dead or that he was alife?
Grant Gigee
That he was alive, of course. I believe this is what the argument is
about. And yes, I would like to know what appeals to you. Perhaps when
you tell me, I can appreciate your viewpoint.
Peter Schuttevaar wrote:
>
> I think of this question as dull. Sing me a new song, for if you ask me in
> this terms, my mind cannot understand what it is: a statement or a question?
>
> ps: what do you like about Nietzsche, that he is dead or that he was alife?
--
Peter Schuttevaar
Grant Gigee wrote in <354F071A...@the.north.pole>...
>That he was alive, of course. I believe this is what the argument is
>about. And yes, I would like to know what appeals to you. Perhaps when
>you tell me, I can appreciate your viewpoint.
What appeals me in Nietzsche's works are his challenges:
- Can we break down the boundaries of our cultural heritage?
- Can we free ourselves from our bonds with social values?
- Can we endure the break-down of our passed-down personal values, and if we
can, can we discover our "inner core" that has the "will" and "power" to
(re)construct our own values??
- Does the experience of this "inner core" give us the guidance, needed to
acomplish such an enterprise? Or do we need to let this "will to power" to
go about on its own (sort of unfolding itself).
- What is the role and identity of the subject, in this monistic unfolding
of the "will to power". How does it participate in the process (and at what
point). How can it stimulate or control it. {For example: was it the will
to power itself that broke down the personal values? Did it simply steer
the subject to do so in order to reveal itself to the subject? If so, then
how should the subject reflect on this and react to this (in order to shape
the stone into a diamont). etc...}
These challenges all lay on the very edge between social an psychological
phenomenon. On the edge between the individual and the group. Between
dependence and independence. These challenges break down the very barriers
between what is in the social and what is in the psychological domain,
causing a tremendous clash between the two.
And in the explosion that comes from this clash, Nietzsche tries to show us
the road to change this explosion into the artistic fireworks that it should
be.
That is what appeals me in Nietzsche. It is a timeless issue presented in a
timeless frame of mind.
Grant Gigee
Interesting. I find myself agreeing with your analysis. However, the
issues are very timely for postmodernists like myself. What I don't
understand is your traditional stance. If you *value* these things,
then you should value where they lead Nietzsche, instead of ignoring the
results. He was crazy enough to deconstruct himself, then was joyous at
his success. It is no wonder he is compared to other spiritual leaders.
Also, amorfati seems to be saying Nietzsche did need a guide and
couldn't make the journey on his own without the consequences.
Experiment and result: a perfect test of his theories. Perhaps you
might approach Nietzsche on his terms and not your own.
amor...@geocities.com
lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> > > I do not see a link between kundalini and Dionysian ecstacy
> > > rites.
> > why not?
> > BTW, I was referring to the inner experience,
> > not the outer cultural ritual aspects.
>
> explain (not me).
So you do not see a link, yet you cannot explain why?
Why not? Surely in your studies of the Dionysian ecstasy rites
you have come across some references you would like to share?
It would help us all.
I already mentioned one reference: "The God of Ecstasy" by
Evans. If you really want me to quote from this, you will have
to do a better job of feigning interest. :)
> where does Nietzsche refer to "inner experience of Dionysian ecstacy"?
drunken song in zarathustra
> Where does he speak of kundalini? I think he does not.
Of course not! I never claimed he knew of it by that name.
He only knew of his own experience. He thought he was unique in
experiencing it, he didnt really understand that many mystics
had experienced what he experienced. He had no context for
understanding what was happening to him, he had no teacher.
That is why he thought he was so special.
It is just a common physiological thing that happens throughout
history to deep and desperate thinkers. The Dionysian cults
had a name for it, the Eleusinian cults had a name for it,
the Christian cults had a name for it, the Shamanic cults had
a name for it, the Taoist cults had a name for it, the African
voodoo cults had a name for it,
for cryin out loud even the Scientology cult has a name for it!
I only use the 'kundalini' name to refer to N's experience
because that is now the most widely known name, ever since real experience
of the Holy Ghost died out in Christianity with the whitening of
African American Gospel music in the 1940's :)
> And if there *would* be a link, explain me why you
> think that is interesting. What are its implications?
> Why do you think it is meaningful, important?
sheesh, again? why dont I think you really want to know?
cheers
amor...@geocities.com
"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> I think of this question as dull. Sing me a new song, for if you ask me in
> this terms, my mind cannot understand what it is: a statement or a question?
poetry?
> ps: what do you like about Nietzsche, that he is dead or that he was alive?
that he discovered how to 'make the Heavens Sing for Joy'!
Peter Schuttevaar
Grant Gigee wrote in <354F2EE0...@the.north.pole>...
>Interesting. I find myself agreeing with your analysis. However, the
>issues are very timely for postmodernists like myself. What I don't
>understand is your traditional stance. If you *value* these things,
>then you should value where they lead Nietzsche, instead of ignoring the
>results. He was crazy enough to deconstruct himself, then was joyous at
>his success. It is no wonder he is compared to other spiritual leaders.
Those that deconstructed themselves are the ones to decide what "stance"
they take on the matter of Nietzsches life. Where things went for Nietzsche
is not per definition where things ought to go for others. I believe this
is perfectly in line with Nietzsche's own thinking. I practise, I don't
follow! (Not to say that your attribute "traditional" given to my "stance"
has no meaning for me)
>Also, amorfati seems to be saying Nietzsche did need a guide and
>couldn't make the journey on his own without the consequences.
>Experiment and result: a perfect test of his theories. Perhaps you
>might approach Nietzsche on his terms and not your own.
The one experiment is conducted in an other environment than the other.
There are no other terms to approach Nietzsche with than my own. My
experiments are as good as his. The artistic fireworks that I make out of
the interaction with my social environment, as well as my own social
identity are my own very results.
Thanks for you attention,
Rex M. Bennett
Grant Gigee wrote in message <354F2EE0...@the.north.pole>...
>Interesting. I find myself agreeing with your analysis. However, the
>issues are very timely for postmodernists like myself.
How do you define "postmodernism" in philosophy? What exactly is
it and how does it differentiate from others?
Thanks,
Rex
Grant Gigee
what is postmodernism?
now there's a question and a half. to explain why it can't be answered,
I'd first have to teach you everything about it :)
some important concepts: there is no objective, only subjective. there
are only two choices - all wrong (absolute) or partly wrong (flexible).
there are no new ideas, even this idea isn't new. outward appearances
do not necessarily reflect inner realities.
deconstruction (breaking down the walls) is a favorite pastime and
popular culture is a favorite target.
some think that the next age will be the postmodern (ie, some arbitrary
time line like - ancient, medieval, modern, postmodern), but I consider
such thought to be highly naive. if MTV is the pinnacle of postmodern
thought, we're all doomed. (it's not, BTW)
how does this relate to the discussion? the questions Peter asks are
much the same as ones postmodernists ask. IMO, reconstruction is
irrelevant, but others have different opinions.
L. Koene
> lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> > > > I do not see a link between kundalini and Dionysian ecstacy
> > > > rites.
> > > why not?
> > > BTW, I was referring to the inner experience,
> > > not the outer cultural ritual aspects.
> >
> > It is your idea. You see a link, I do not. So you have to
> > explain (not me).
>
> So you do not see a link, yet you cannot explain why?
No.
> Why not?
Left as an exercise for the reader.
> Surely in your studies of the Dionysian ecstasy rites
> you have come across some references you would like to share?
No, I have not.
> It would help us all.
Us? Who else but you?
> I already mentioned one reference: "The God of Ecstasy" by
> Evans. If you really want me to quote from this, you will have
> to do a better job of feigning interest. :)
Remember, you were busy explaining your idea.
When you are tired of my questioning, pleaso say so!
> > where does Nietzsche refer to "inner experience of Dionysian ecstacy"?
>
> drunken song in zarathustra
Explain me first what is Dionysian about it?
> > Where does he speak of kundalini? I think he does not.
>
> Of course not! I never claimed he knew of it by that name.
OK.
> He only knew of his own experience. He thought he was unique in
> experiencing it, he didnt really understand that many mystics
> had experienced what he experienced. He had no context for
> understanding what was happening to him, he had no teacher.
He was very lonely anyway.
Please again, be more concrete. Waiting again for
Nietzsche quotes! (I even accept them in English,
when you tell where they come from :)
> That is why he thought he was so special.
There are other reasons why he thought so.
I can give one: In Ecco Homo there is a chapter
about why he is such an excellent writer. This is
not very modest, but he is right! And this is
not his only quality: for instance he was also
musically talented. He could have been a relatively
good composer. (When you have a musical interest:
he has written music!)
> It is just a common physiological thing that happens throughout
> history to deep and desperate thinkers.
[snip religious movements]
> I only use the 'kundalini' name to refer to N's experience
> because that is now the most widely known name,
No, I do not think so.
What you seem to describe is commonly known as
mystical experience. This has happened to more
people than only 'deep and desperate thinkers'.
Do you agree?
> > And if there *would* be a link, explain me why you
> > think that is interesting. What are its implications?
> > Why do you think it is meaningful, important?
>
> sheesh, again? why dont I think you really want to know?
Why don't I think you *know*?
BTW - What I would like to know is how you got
interested in Nietzsche? He is not very mild about
supernaturalists! :-)
Bart
amor...@geocities.com
lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> > Surely in your studies of the Dionysian ecstasy rites
> > you have come across some references you would like to share?
>
> No, I have not.
thought so, sigh.
ok, I will stop if you will.
somehow you think I am trying to change your mind about something.
but playing the skeptic game of did-not/did-too/prove-it/ad-nauseum is not
interesting to me, i am really more interested in discussing
things, and learning things. since you have told me you know
nothing about the subject and dont care to discuss it,
i am perfectly willing to agree with you on this point.
you are welcome to the last word.
take care
amor...@geocities.com
"Peter Schuttevaar" <pp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6il9vq$qa6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >ok. but it would help a little if you could elaborate on this aphorism :)
> >How do we take his declarations seriously but not literally?
> >How do we do this without being patronizing to him?
> >Give me an example.
>
> >"Sing me a New Song!
> Describe to me the world in different terms (for I cannot see it for myself
> anymore)
ok, thanks for the example.
i guess you are describing him from the point of view of illness and
degeneration? whereas i am seeing a kind of triumphant declaration
of victory in this statement of N's.
> > The Earth is Transfigured,
> I cannot find meaning in the world anymore.
>
> > and the Heavens Sing for Joy!"
> And I believe that others (you who can sing me this new song) are still in
> contact with that world.
well, ok, but dont you see anything positive at all in this statement
of his, which is the culmination of his life and philosophy?
> >There is an alternative to 'passing away and dying weakened', as Nietzsche
> >demonstrated for us: liberation through god-realization. This is his
> >rediscovery of the perennial Good News!
>
> I am realising God all day long, although I am not sure if that would meet
> your criterion for what God is.
sure! substitute 'reality-realization' for 'god-realization' if that
makes more sense to you, that is what i mean: 'realization of whatever is
really real' or something :)
cheers
'mo fati: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
L. Koene
> lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
> > > Surely in your studies of the Dionysian ecstasy rites
> > > you have come across some references you would like to share?
> >
> > No, I have not.
>
> thought so, sigh.
>
> ok, I will stop if you will.
It would be nice when you would answer the
questions I asked you in my previous posting.
(I do not care whether you do it here or by
e-mail.)
> somehow you think I am trying to change your mind about something.
No.
> but playing the skeptic game of did-not/did-too/prove-it/ad-nauseum is not
> interesting to me,
Wrong interpretation.
> i am really more interested in discussing
> things, and learning things.
Yes.
> since you have told me you know
> nothing about the subject and dont care to discuss it,
> i am perfectly willing to agree with you on this point.
This only seems your admission of weakness. Nothing more.
Best wishes,
Peter Schuttevaar
amor...@geocities.com wrote in <6isv4i$evs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >"Sing me a New Song!
>> Describe to me the world in different terms (for I cannot see it for
myself
>> anymore)
>
>ok, thanks for the example.
>i guess you are describing him from the point of view of illness and
>degeneration? whereas i am seeing a kind of triumphant declaration
>of victory in this statement of N's.
I am describing him in his struggle with illness. Seems that neither you
nor I take him literaly here.
>> > The Earth is Transfigured,
>> I cannot find meaning in the world anymore.
>>
>> > and the Heavens Sing for Joy!"
>> And I believe that others (you who can sing me this new song) are still
in
>> contact with that world.
>
>well, ok, but dont you see anything positive at all in this statement
>of his, which is the culmination of his life and philosophy?
These statements are phenomenal in their simplicity and beauty. It is a
positive thing to leave life behind in such a way. There is a sort of
heroism about them that make me think: "would I have the bravery to be like
that in similar circumstances?" They call upon my empathy.
Regards,
Torquemada
In article <lkoene-ya02408000...@news.worldonline.nl>,
lko...@NO-SPAM.worldonline.nl (L. Koene) wrote:
How is his willing to agree and move on weakness? It seems more progress
towards a goal. Perhaps your reaction is an admission in itself - but of
what?
la caseta
I don't agree with you all!
Torquemada escribió en mensaje ...