• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oeaohoo

  1. Sure - but not if that's the reason you're doing it!
  2. 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!
  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. @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...
  7. 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.