Oeaohoo

Many religions knew of a different path towards God: the “left hand path” or vāmāchāra as it was known in Hindu and Buddhist Tantra. This path includes those things which would usually have been excluded from spiritual practice: sex, intoxicants (Leo’s psychedelic path would probably be included here), meats (priests were generally vegetarian) and in extreme cases even things like necromancy and the consumption of bodily fluids such as semen or menstrual fluid. Adepts of this path would often live in “spooky” places such as graveyards because such a location served as an effective reminder of the mortality and futility of all things that are conditioned by time and space. Obviously many of these things are tropes of the horror genre. As far as violence is concerned, it was often involved even in the standard warrior path for a man. This can be seen not only in the Abrahamic tradition of Holy War but in ancient Persian and Nordic traditions. For example, in Nordic religion, the Valkyries (war goddesses) selected those of the warrior caste who fought and died with the greatest valour, heroism and self-sacrifice to abide eternally in Valhalla. However, violence in modern entertainment tends (with admitted exceptions) to be very crass and gratuitous, thus more or less excluding any transcendent element. In any case, the “left hand path” was known as being particularly swift but also very dangerous, and so was generally frowned upon. It is very easily to delude oneself and think that in indulging one’s lower nature one is attaining to spiritual heights, if not to be overwhelmed and even destroyed by destructive and potentially infernal influences that have been naively aroused. However, given the state of dissolution in the present age of Kali (or Iron Age as the Greeks new it), the texts of Tantra state that the left-hand path is probably the one that is most effective today, so long as you have what it takes.

This is actually not true: there was a Japanese practice throughout the Middle Ages known as harakiri where a noble would commit suicide if they had sufficiently tarnished their reputation and standing in society. In many ancient societies, a woman was even expected to commit suicide if her husband died before her (see, for example, the Hindu practice of sati). Buddhism and Stoicism both allowed for suicide but only in very special certain circumstances. For example Cicero is quoted as saying: “To leave the place that one is assigned in life is not permitted without an order from the leader, who is God.” And Seneca even says this: “Wherever you do not want to fight, it is always possible to retreat. You have been given nothing easier than death.” In a certain way, you could even say that the Christian martyrs committed suicide; there is a very famous story in the Old Testament in which Samson kills himself along with all the Philistines by pulling down their temple. HOWEVER, a suicide that was motivated by personal and passionate concerns of any kind was totally condemned, not only because it was understood as being a violence committed against one’s own nature and even against society, but also because it was known to be simply ineffective. After all, if you are still identified with your karma, the mere fact that your body is dead will not sever this attachment, and severe punishments will likely be incurred for having inflicted such a violence upon life. Therefore - in almost all cases, unless one is absolutely sure that there is nothing left to be fulfilled in this life - suicide is a great mistake and should definitely not be done. None of the above is intended in any way as an advocation of suicide - don’t kill yourself! If you know someone who has unfortunately committed suicide, you can at least know that they might not be rotting in hell for all eternity. Finally, a koan-style joke from the Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran: it’s not worth it to kill yourself because you always do it too late!

“In the beginning was the fap”! Evolution is just an alibi for people who have regressed to the level of apes. I didn’t mean masturbation specifically but the idea that the physical is superior to the mental. After all, don’t you teach that everything is mind?

And there we have it! Modern degeneracy masquerading as smug enlightenment.

That’s definitely true in some cases, but we have to remember that the proper hierarchy is: pre-rational - rational - trans-rational. I see an example of the pre-trans fallacy here: that which is really pre-rational (sex, the body, and even relationships in most cases, to say nothing of trashy fun and partying) proclaims itself to be trans-rational simply because it is not rational. Anyway, I’m not suggesting anyone waste their life pouring over every word of Nietzsche’s anti-gospel. I just know from personal experience that it can be useful to some people, and that to say that “Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity” is quite a dumbed down oversimplification of the reality.

People are on here talking about picking up girls at clubs and absolutely petty political bickering, studying philosophy is surely less of a “trap” and a “waste of time” than this (in most cases). Obviously dwelling on anything is a trap, but in most cases the ego has to be gradually unfolded and studying ideas can be helpful for this. In any case, there is an obvious way in which Nietzsche is at least imprecise here: in master morality, the Good comes first, and to be bad is to fall short of that goodness; whereas in slave morality, evil comes first, and to be good is to not be evil like those nasty masters. But by this definition, Christian morality is generally somewhere in between master and slave morality: according to the Augustinian doctrine in which God is good and God is all, all “evil” can only be a privatio boni (a privation of good), as in a master morality; but we are talking about “evil” here, and not simply about badness, which implies a slave morality. Nietzsche’s analysis is particularly aimed at Protestantism (this was particularly popular in Germany since Luther and the Reformation, but America too is very Protestant) and it is also to a certain degree a projection of a more modern phenomenon onto the past. One sees slave morality operating everywhere today, but that doesn’t mean that all of Christianity can be reduced to it (although Christianity might have helped pave the way to it in some respects). Here are some examples of some typical modern confessions of a slave morality: I’m good because I don’t keep guns like those nasty republicans, I’m good because I don’t have gay sex, I’m good because I’m not a fascist, I’m good because I didn’t get a vaccine, I’m good because I’m not like the insane anti-vaxxers, I’m good because I’m not fat and lazy, I’m good because I don’t judge people for being fat and lazy - and finally, I’m good because I don’t judge people for judging people for being fat and lazy! In fact, the whole “democratic” apparatus today has devolved into one huge slave morality, in the sense that both sides define themselves simply in terms of not being like the other. Generally speaking, neither the “left” nor the “right” have any real positive vision for our countries, they just try to show that they’re less “evil” than the other, and this is exactly what Nietzsche means by slave morality. All of the judgements above are those of slave morality because they are essentially passive (interestingly, the word passive comes from the root pati which means “to suffer”! Remember the “Passion” of Christ..?) and hence do not spring from one’s own being. In a certain way, Nietzsche is actually saying what Leo said above: all external identities are a trap to distract you from your Self. The Self is obviously a master - not in the sense of being a Machiavellian despot and tyrannising over weaklings, which is not really Nietzsche’s point anyway - but in the sense of being rooted in itself and not needing anything exterior to define itself. Obviously, Christ was showing one way to attaining this absolute mastery over all forms of passivity to oneself; this is precisely what it means to be able to “walk on the waters”, water being the traditional symbol of all that is yin, feminine and passive (for more on this, see the the excellent work of René Guénon, Symbols of Sacred Science). For what it is worth, it is clear from his writings that Nietzsche did understand Christ quite well, along with the value of traditional forms of asceticism (whether of a contemplative or action-oriented form). As a modern “philosopher”, his writings are of course full of digressions and confusions, and you would probably do better to study traditional wisdom, but - given that we have all been affected to one extent or another by the modern world - he can be useful in deconstructing your inherited moral prejudices. Hope this answers your question!

Sure - but not if that's the reason you're doing it!

Great question! I have had many a concussion from banging my head against this stone wall... But - beyond the wall... You're putting far too much emphasis on the masculine pole of spirituality: meaninglessness/emptiness/nothingness. This is half of the truth, which is itself only a portion of the Truth... To most people I would say: "Life is meaningless. Everything is relative and all of your frenzied clambering is in vain; you are trying to win the un-winnable game." But to you I would say: "Everything is profoundly, infinitely meaningful!" ...and I would never be lying!

Absolutely! Most of what passes of as "creativity" nowadays is just new combinations of preexisting idioms, because hardly anybody is willing to make the necessary sacrifices for true - what I would call third-order - creativity. However, I don't think it's quite true to say that Of course, the creators of new values have always lived away from glory and the marketplace, but how is Globalism any more or less incompatible with that than, say, nationalism? If anything, nationalist environments are far more intolerant of creativity. The empty, nihilistic, laede-neminem morality of our culture is actually quite a blessing for creators, because we are free to do what we want without anyone sticking their nose in it. Compare that to Shostakovich leaving cryptic messages in his pieces in Soviet Russia, and a placid globalism doesn't seem so bad, no? One must also keep in mind that globalism and multiculturalism are still quite recent phenomena - what in this world is immediately perfect? I have definitely noticed that we can tend to sacrifice diversity in one sense in the name of diversity in another - but perhaps once we achieve diversity in that sense, then our focus will shift back to cultural diversity? I also hear from you this (now quite common) complaint that we seem to value all cultures except our own, being uniquely and unequivocally aware and ashamed of our own faults, prejudices and historical failings. One will feel however one feels about this based on their political leanings - perhaps we should be, perhaps we shouldn't be... perhaps - both? Anyway, I like your post, but I don't like the way you mix in this talk of nationalism and cultural purity with a longing for an unbounded creative spirit - they are not equivalent and do not go hand in hand, if anything quite the contrary! PS: I watched this long interview with David Foster Wallace (wonderful author!) yesterday that you might like. Toward the end he said: PSS: Maybe your diagnosis is correct, but your prescription is wrong? Perhaps the real reason for the current dirth of creativity is, for instance, as follows? (Whispered into the ears of Clare Graves... ) One must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star!

I can't know if this would have any relation to why you feel resentful towards beautiful women, but I notice there are a couple things that slightly irk me about some of the people I've known in that category. I think for one, beautiful people in general have much less of an incentive to be or do anything interesting - people will want to associate with them simply because they are beautiful. As such, I've found there can be a bit of an association with beauty and unconsciousness, which can also tie in with a certain sense of entitlement and an unjustified lack of self-doubt. But, it's quite clear to me that these things only bother me (in so far as they do) because I envy them. I have noticed that resentment and envy are basically the same thing, and the French term ressentiment is an interesting conflation of the two. There are obviously many other reasons why you might feel such a way, most of which will ultimately come down to your own psychology.

I was interpreting it as something broader than simply lying or narrow unconsciousness. Basically everything that humans do is built upon layers and layers of contrivance, of abstraction, of interpretation, of artifice - fundamentally, of bullshit.

@Leo Gura You make a mistake when you conflate life-denying with uptight and serious, and similarly when you imply that the inverse of life-denying is hedonistic. That’s not at all what Nietzsche is about. If you have the time/interest, this short paper does a great job of summarising Nietzsche’s thinking on this subject. Also - @Joseph Maynor - Nietzsche and Ayn Rand have basically nothing in common - not even according to Ayn Rand...

I get the sense that @Leo Gura hasn't actually read any Nietzsche first-hand, though I could be wrong... Some thoughts: Nietzsche wasn't some ultra-regressive neo-aristocrat - he "blasts" slave morality disproportionality because society at his time of writing was so possessed by it. It's fair to say that Nietzsche misses the boat on genuine spirituality & enlightenment, to his detriment, but there's far more to slave morality than just peace and love - namely, in a word, ressentiment. See Osho's discussion of Nietzsche for more on this. It was precisely the life-negating nihilism of Christianity (and ascetic modes of being in general) that he was criticising! The trouble with just lumping Nietzsche in as another "classic Orange knee-jerk reaction to Blue' is that it wasn't the Blue aspects of religion (arbitrary dogma, ideology, blind faith, moral absolutism, etc.) that he was particularly concerned with (at least as regards his genealogy of morality and the slave-master dichotomy). It was the particular doctrinal approach to morality which puts all the emphasis on not-doing and what shouldn't be done (and thus defines good in terms of evil rather than bad in terms of good, as was the aristocratic way). In fact, when we was concerned with dogma, he was just as concerned with rational materialist dogma as religious dogma! What Nietzsche was a knee-jerk reaction too is the one-sidedness of Platonism and Christianity, which - rather than spiritualising the material world too - made the material world something corrupt, evil and to-be-escaped, and thus set up the duality between mind and body which has subsequently plagued the philosophical tradition! (Not a coincidence, Nietzsche would add.) The most fundamental problem Nietzsche had with such life-denying philosophies was that his ultimate goal was a total affirmation of life! As far as locating Nietzsche on the spiral goes, I would definitely put him at Yellow. I agree with you that he has a red shadow, and I would say that he also has an orange shadow, but I think he knew that (though he obviously wouldn't frame it in such terms). That being said, I'm not sure that the Spiral Dynamics model is the best lens to view someone as idiosyncratic as Nietzsche through.