Posted on Leave a comment

Capitalistic altruism

Is the person who is calm and delivers a concise, well thought out argument, winner of this life-force I’ve talked about. Of which I mean the symbolic affirmation of the inner-self to prove oneself worthy of life? In the meaning-making process of capitalism, the gold standard of souls is where one can measure oneself against another for an objective assessment of worthiness. It’s a healthy reminder that souls materializes when archaic forms of violence (of which meant prehistoric survival) are transformed into modern forms of ‘violence’ (of which means symbolic immortality). For the dialecticians, the transfer of life-force happens through the labor of the negative i.e. conflict, arguments, insults, and submissions. All organisms that survive in open nature outperforms its rivals when physical brute force ends the threat. In modern society, the soul has taken up the responsibilities of measuring life worth, so, how is worth measured to the soul? Schopenhauer’s will-to-life concludes that there’s an underlying force that motivates everything from the very small (atoms), to the very large, (galaxies) to expand indefinitely. So we, with an evolved brain capable of comprehending what it will go through at the end of life, disregards the body as something temporal, a piece of carbon within a space rock flung thousands of miles around the sun, This view lead Schopenhauer, as well as dialecticians, to conclude the will-to-life striving is inherently meaningless and dangerous. So these archaic forces must be sublimated into utilitarian forces. The sense of most people that we are prisoners to our instincts only to be occasionally relieved by catharsis, oedipal forces, or reactive forces, is contributing to the reactive forces of capitalism making meaning for our souls.

I’ve talked about the two forces, active and reactive. Reading Deleuze’s take on Nietzsche in his masterpiece interpretation book Nietzsche and Philosophy, there’s a sense of accomplishment after understanding the active and reactive forces. It’s the kind of feeling one gets after acing a test by getting the right answer. Nietzsche reads forces much more simple and practical than dividing the world up into two. Further reading can frustrate the reader because Deleuze moves away from the clear-cut definition of these forces into an anti-ideological openness. This is where Nietzsche stands out as one of the most powerful yet humbling philosophers of all time. Nietzsche offers an active solution, instead of the the will-to-life, he offers the will-to-power. The will-to-power’s interpretation of capitalism is that active action can be done out of love or out of altruism. An action done out of altruism is when the active and reactive forces are confused as to the transfer of life-force of growing adults. An altruistic action is when reactive forces are participatory in the transfer of life-force but sentiments of loss are mitigated into a moralistic or ideological level. Capitalists want to forgive the debts their populations have, and give them opportunity, but remaining life-force is transferred. Capitalistic altruism is an example of an active force purposefully confusing this transfer where the betterment of society is itself a fair trade-off to the old, archaic states of humanity. The capitalists are also confused as to what they are actually understand as receiving. The betterment of society is itself its own reward. This keeps them blind to the life-force transfer. They are utilitarians and pragmatists which would explain why most capitalists are resort to moral structure in religion and the spiritual. They don’t know what to do with so much life that they’ve accumulated. But the-will-to-power is the genealogical force. Like i said, any phenomena contains within itself its own active force, capitalism as a force, contains within itself it’s own active and reactive forces. This tension is what gives phenomena it’s ‘realness.’ Similarly, capitalism sprung into existence out of this confusion. Returning to our hypothetical confrontation between two people, who wins the life-force? an altruist? As established in the last post, the winner is the one who conducts a successful inception, that is leaving your opponent ‘feeling some type of way’ where you relish in the fact that he is left feeling resentful of losing. This would make you the dominant force in the confrontation. The life-force is confirmed with an accurate modus operandi, as adults grow into understanding the world as objectively as possible… dialectically. Growing adults can checkmate an opponent into ‘playing himself’, meaning proving his own arguments working against him. Think of the inception as the apparatus where the indebted slave must suffer torture for the creditor to self-feel, that is to use his slave’s pain as payment for the unpaid debt. Again, this is set in Nietzsche’s hypothetical slave-master society. In today’s post-materialized soul, you can relish taking life-force as you win an argument and you can play your sweet victory over and over again in your mind or later, or forever for that matter. If your opponent has sentiments of bitterness but doesn’t understand the modus operandi behind it, this is altruism, because the loser accepts the dogma of growth. The same altruism that capitalism works under to confuse both parties as to what the life-force is. But if you want to leave your opponent having ‘learned a lesson,’ say with a fist to his or her face, or an uncalled for insult, then you leave your opponent better than when you found them. This the soul can not accept a mere ego trip, it wants revent, the fuel souls work on, the baggage of bad consciousness. This is active love, the love of a parent, the love of your boss, the love of your society, the love of god. You might intend to teach your opponent a lesson but this is disingenuous because it betrays the will-to-power. It doesn’t confuse which means it never enphenominates to anything. It just leads to banter and wanting to out-teach each other a lesson. Or worse, it becomes a battle of who gives a fuck the least. For the soul, the perpetual inception works in the ideological level. That is why if you attack someone’s beleif, not only will that person react as as if its a threat on his life, but his life is in constant torture, all live in the head of your opponent.

A component of a modus operandi is put your opponent into a position where he or she is required replaying his losing of life-force over and over again. Again, this works beautifully in the ideological or political level. And the name of the game is recognition. It is only if you recognize yourself inside the mind of your opponent’s fuled with ressentiment even after the confrontation is over. Deleuze want people to be anti-ideological, anti-reactive. To do so, he points out that there are active forces that become-reactive. and reactive forces that become-active. Love is an example of an active force becoming-reactive only because the reactive force takes away his ability to self-feel. That is he learns to become in the world.

Is an active force the dominant for because he hold the will-to-power? No. You can also ask this question: can a reactive force overcome an active force by using will-to-power? Again no. Nietzsche isn’t difficult to understand. Everything, body, or phenomena contain within itself active and reactive forces but with their genealogies. Meaning that there’s really only one force but with direction to it. That’s it. The question to ask is: is and active force becoming-reactive or is a reactive force becoming-active. Will-to-power is present within both active and reactive forces. Only reactive force can make an active force become-reactive by inhibiting what it can do.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.