Featured

Nietzsche’s Naive and Narrative Interpretation

Several criticisms of Nietzsche tend to go for the psychological or moral side of his philosophy. His critics attack him the basis of “he thinks he is better than everyone else because he understands this or that…” This can not be further from the truth. Even some historians pointed out that Nietzsche’s psychotic breakdown period drew connections to his writings where he constantly criticized his own weakness and failures as the basis for his philosophy. I want to do justice to his metaphysics and ontology rather than his moral statements. Many know him because of his concept of The Eternal Recurrence. For those who watches Todd May’s lecture of Deleuze’s interpretation of The Eternal Recurrence, it has an ethical interpretation and an Ontological one.

Starts at 16:18

The Naive Interpretation

The naive interpretation of Nietzsche is where one confuses his ontology for his ethical one. They often think of the will-to-power as earned or attainable. This is because ethical choices leads to rewards for being good or consequences for being bad. The Naive interpretation attributes ressentiment, bad-consciousness, and the ascetic ideal to the feeling of impotence caused by the powerful imposing their authority. As opposed to those who hold the power to enslave the weak, the powerful is the cause for evil. Especially when referring to murder, rape, and torture, to the naive interpreter, these are caused by the powerful or the weak’s impotence to hold up. Here, the reactive powers (ressentiment, bad-consciousness, and the ascetic ideal) are assigned a psychology; a response mechanism to being downtrodden. Reading On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche made it clear that he despises the English psychologist so much so that he mentions it at the very beginning of the book.

The other is the Narrative interpretation of Nietzsche where the reader understands the will-to-power through a series of moves. The “narrative” moves comes from the 3-structured polemic on On The Genealogy of Morals. The polemics are well structured pieces of prose that takes the reader on a series of thought. One can read it forwards and backward and derive clareboyancy from reading the book unconventionally. I will explain these interpretations by first going over the naive interpretation then explaining the narrative interpretation. In fact learning the naive interpretation is essential to understanding the narrative interpretation as it is embedded in it.

Ressentiment: The Naive interpretation

The naive interpretation goes like this… Two hypothetical tribes come unto contact with an unconquered tribe and the strongest tribe conquers both. The dominant tribe becomes the master class and the losers become the slave class. When Nietzsche reaches the the transvaluation of values in the middle of the first polemic, the naive interpreter can develop pity for the slave class, then hope in their overthrowing of their oppressor’s values. The values which belonged to the master class were defined as “good” then flipped to “bad” by the slaves. “Good” in ancient Greece or Ancient Rome did not have any moral connotation to it. Good was equivalent to clean, nobel, dominant, masculine, and powerful. Most importantly, “good” was the ability to assign and interpret meaning and not the consequences for utility. Or as the psychologists would say, “‘good’ is good because it is useful, it helped to serve society grow and function well.” The “bad” or slave class had no choice but to work in the shadows or learn to love secrets and work in dark corners. In a way, the naive interpreters are right, the slave class did not have freedom to make their own choices. But they’re wrong to say that they did not hold will-to-power. Both master and slave class hold equal will-to-power. With it, the slave class enacted that “spiritual revenge” on their masters because of the their weakness that infected the whole majority of society with ressentiment.

So then why if both classes held the will-to-power does one class (master class) dominate the slave class? It has to do with the slave class self-deprecating themselves. We’ll get to this when we get to the narrative interpretation. The naive interpretation continues into the second polemic and it has to do with how the slave class will identify themselves. The slave class re-identified themselves to be anything but their oppressors. The consequence is that the slave class pretends to enjoy what they do have and pretend to not enjoy what they don’t have. All they can do is resent the master class “have’s” at a distance. The slaves pretend to be fine with “have nots.” Already the naive interpretation develops a psychology of “sour grapes.”

Bad-consciousness: The Naive interpretation

Nietzsche asks the question where does guilt originate from. To the Naive interpreter, it came from the master class enforcing their power over the slaves. Spontaneity, potency, abundance laughter, over-indulgence, wealth, aggressiveness, joy, eccentricity, sexual fitness and availability, freedom, vigor, and demonstrative extroversion, all these life-affirming values would have to be compressed and buried deep inside the poor slave if he is to exercise power over their master’s values. Already it stinks of psychology. And not the good kind. The naive interpreter has to say that his heavy load of compressed life must be negated, rejected, and then purified to be washed clean. The ritualistic symbolism of baptism represent the washing of the dirty soul as a filthy, degenerate and impure human for the very fact that he was born. Thus the beginning of the Christian conception of the soul was born.

Before I get to the narrative interpretation and the materialization of the soul, I have to explain how the slaves managed to self-flagellate their symbolic souls. Nietzsche said that the start of society happens somewhere at first instance of trade. There’s no reason to trade an apple for another apple if one can trade an apple for two oranges. Trade is where people can measure oneself against another, that is to say, one can show their surpluses of life outward as a status symbol. It’s easy to fall into the trap of utility-psychology of this hypothetical society, arguing for fairness in commerce or organizing society into a fair state. Trade is a science and a useful one to the naive interpreters. It can be studied, tuned, and worked on in favor of a prosperous society. A society’s success is based on one’s commitments and obligation to fulfill his or her commitments. Those who break their commitments or promises are punished by those who control it.

When a creditor punishes a debtor, the creditor does so because of the debtor’s inability to pay off the debt. During the torture, the creditor can feel pleasure off the pain of the debtor’s suffering. The pleasure of watching someone suffer was the exchange of the missing payment. The debt must always be paid if society is to become resilient and reliable enough. Through torture and punishment, the creditor makes sure a memory is implanted into the mind of the debtor. The naive interpreter says, “ah! operant conditioning, a classical behavioral response. The punisher simply pairs up with pain with a condition to ward off unwanted behavior… See! The powerful abuse their power! The slaves are no more different than Pavlov’s dogs!”

The Ascetic Ideal: The Naive Interpretation

In the naive interpretation, a priest from the master race has to descend the slops to preach to slaves. The reason is the keep slave morality locked up and contained. If slave morality gets out, it could infect the larger population and cause an uprising. So the Priest becomes and ascetic prest. Asceticism is a practice where one abstains from pleasure and comfort for religious or spiritual reasons. The logic of the naive interpreter proceeds from before, if the master race contains the crowd, they can control these instincts for experiencing life. That’s why the ascetic priest preaches to the choir: the slaves already carry guilty or bad conscious, they were punished into submission because of their weakness and they denied themselves inwardly. The job of the ascetic priest was already made easier by this point. The slaves don’t want to feel or experience the pleasures of life, they want to be saved. The priest tells them what to do and how to do it. Guilty souls do not get saved unless they repent and purify themselves. They tell them that the carnal pleasures are “bad,” in the sense that the slaves made themselves bad, evil

The Narrative Interpretation: The Ascetic Ideal

Here is where we flip the hour glass and things fall into place. Because if the slaves created evil, then the priest can use this to their advantage. But what if the slaves wanted it in the first place? First we must understand what we have in front of us. Nietzsche only gave us half of the story if we read On the Genealogy of Morals from cover to cover. Early on, we sense Nietzsche give us clue on how the think genealogically. And that is when he said in his second polemic that the debtors actively seek their own punishment. In fact they welcome it. We can say, “of course they want it, the priest told them so, or “of course they want it, they turned themselves inwardly during their encagement process of negating life.

In any case, the end result was the overthrowing of the master class during the slave revolt. During rise of Christianity, the crucifiction of Christ marked the complete 180 degree flip of values. Good turned to bad and labeled “evil.” And bad turned to good and labeled “divine.” One could say “they had it coming.” But what if the slaves wanted someone to preach them? What if they desired it so much so that they welcomed in the priest to guide them and tell them what to do. One can argue, “of course they did, after generation of generation of torture, murder, rape, and suffering, they were intergenerationally traumatized.

The Narrative Interpretation: Bad-consciousness

We can say that the it is the fault of the master class for punishing their slaves into revolt. But the creditors did not punish their debtors out of revenge, but for the sake of restoring a balance. Maybe at the beginning, the slaves did suffer unjustifiably so. But as mentioned before, they welcomed their punishment. Why did they welcomed their own torture? Because they wanted to turn inward. They wanted to negate life and cage themselves into a weak and pathetic servant. They wanted to be guilty in a way to be saved. So they felt better after being flogged, whipped, burned, maimed, dismembered, slashed, suffocated, hanged or even killed. Nietzsche even said that life back then was brighter, greener, and more peaceful, not because of catharsis or psychological principle, but because both master and slave served with meaning.

This goes hand in hand with Foucault’s interpretation of discipline and punishment. Foucault’s accounts punishment is that torture happened in public squares and open spaces. A place where everybody can see the torture of the transgressor. The purpose of making torture public was to deter the population from committing the same acts of crime. When the population looked up to the torturer with sympathy. The scene was made into a sign of revolution. Punishment served the opposite effect. Now crimes could be committed for the purposes of being the one with the nose around the neck for everyone to see you. People got a hit out of watching public executions. Think of the French Revolution where the guillotine beheaded more and more people not less. Foucault said that torture moved inside buildings for only a select to see. But when internal revolution occurred because of it, torture and punishment moved into private cells.

The narrative interpretation: Ressentiment

We can sense from moving backwards that the slaves had supplied their own demand. They loved to be shamed and humiliated because they negated life. Like a disease, the world is infected with frugality, timidity, stoicism, limitation, moderation, purity, chastity, servitude, modesty, and forgiveness. They wanted more and more suffering for more repentance. All this for the hope of salvation of their souls because one day live they’ll live in peace and calm. They created heaven and hell from the very beginning and secretly wished their opponents to burn in Hell. They wanted a life that didn’t exist and negated the life they actually had. The infection that spread was the spirit of revenge. A creative revenge, a revenge where the master class would one day betray his own conscious and give up on life. This was the creative plan of the slave revolt The slaves created psychology. It is no wonder psychology is largely negative and filled with a sense of nihilism. Psychology steamed from the slave’s legacy. Nietzsche never choose a side, but it’s clear which side he despised and which side he feels a deep nostalgia for. But there isn’t any reason to suspect that Nietzsche’s life was somehow great or remarkable enough to despise christianity in his time. He was the son of a pastor and attended church regularly. He was constantly disappointed with life, love, and was constantly neurotic. If anything, he should show signs of being resentful of life. But held on to truth. He did something that the herd could not, stay truthful to oneself.

Some notes on the Life-force

The parts of life worth living are cowardly movements that crawl under subterranean battlegrounds. That’s why living life to the fullest is cowardly at it’s core – one always takes advantage of another soul’s flow of life-force. I’ve said that the life-force is the life one takes away from someone else’s “soul” in order to self-feel. Self-feeling is the feeling of worthiness. Let’s say someone insults you (and for argument sake, you got your feelings hurt). We’ll talk about symbolic dying latter. If that person who insulted you wins the argument, then that person has the luxury of self-feeling off of your humiliation. And the sociatital contract is that you must recognize the transaction under the assumption that he or she was owed life-force. There’s was an impasse somewhere and someone had to take on the job of losing. So then if you believe you had nothing to do for you to accrue your opponent’s life-force, why then isn’t being the better man (or women) a viable option? To simply walk away like these mature adults say they do. Or pretend to feel offended while in fact your just playing the part for the sake of moving on? Why can’t you simply walk away and bite the bullet?

The infinite hell

You can walk away. The incorrect answer always attributes walking away to emotional intelligence. The reasoning goes like this: “as long as you are physically alive and well, you’re fine to just walk away and let him or her deal with the problem. It’s their problem, not yours” says the psychologists. If you look into today’s self-help literature, recent trends urges people stay honest like in the book “Radical Honesty” by Brad Blanton. Meaning you don’t walk away if you genuinely feel insulted. Radical Honesty instructs readers to show true emotion and stay with the uncomfortable emotions. Otherwise, this argument rests on yielding to emotional outrage. This is where the rationalists come up with a scientific explanation of using emotional intelligence. While they got the science of the emotional brain right, it’s merely a quantitative symptom of the reactive brain. The science takes credit for the underground battle that genealogical dose at a societal level. The adult will try to investigate the motivation of the aggressor to go off on him. This is exactly what the aggressor wants. The aggressor, bully, or sadist savors on this type of hell. Hell of infinite regression

Everybody wants the same thing, nobody wants to want different things anymore

All successful self-feeling happen within the Modus Operandi. That’s why the default route of western civilization is the capitalist one. The only reason why someone would want socioeconomic status, is to stand objectively in a world in order to understand it. This understanding of the world is robust enough to assemble a modus operandi. These operations are reactive spiritual revenge but on a deep powerful level. But why would anyone want to do this? This is the same question rationalist ask when they learn about sociology. Their reasoning goes: “someone insulted you? Who cares… As long as you’re physically alive, your feelings shouldn’t matter…” Or worse, “you got your feelings hurt?? Oh boohoo, grow up.” What they fail to understand is that self-feeling is necessarily cowardly at its deepest… Look at my post on vitalism. Except that in an individualist society, being cowardly is not highly regarded as. So cowardly moves must assembled and regarded as worthy. That’s why someone who wants to be worthy of life must make his life harder on purpose. He wants a worthy enemy.

The only solution is the IDGAF solution.

Animalistic determinism is binary. In nature, the winner of an encounter would kill or seriously injure an intruder, competitor, or a predator. This is nature’s equivalent of remaining worthy. Remaining worthy indicates the organism is alive. An organism doesn’t get to experience loss as they’re already dead or eaten up by the time they get “depressed”. Primitive societies gain social intelligence but there is still a binary system. The bigger male gets the resources, food, and mates. There are no “if, ands, nor buts” and if someone challenges the alpha male, they must win by force. As societies progresses into hierarchies, then states, then to current civilization, this binary disintegrates and worthiness can be won by arguments. Socially intelligent mammals like humans and chimpanzee stop going after their natural enemies and create artificially complicated ones. Intelligent animals learn how to read each other and regard the future as well as the past. They must brace themselves in order to survive. They internalize their instincts and recognition are stored in their symbolic inner self. This is what is known as the materialization of the soul

What the State does with life-force and how commerce collects it

But what does this look like? It’s not that there’s an imaginary health bar at the top of each person’s head during a verbal argument. Or a conveyor belt between two people’s soul in a tug-o-war fighting for life-force. The life-force transaction is instantaneous. It’s like a one time payment. To the contenders, it is a fight to the death. Taking it back to Nietzsche’s hypothetical credit-debit system, when the creditor inducess pain onto the debtor, then the creditor can self-feel as the torture incurs. Once the creditor self-feels, the creditor has received the debtor’s payment. This movement of life-force is so intrinsic to us that it is responsible for our species ability to live peacefully in society. When these forces “spill out,” we experience contention and spiritual instability. With the Death of God, the state allocates the same amount of life-force at the start of life with no discrimination. Commerce works with altruism to manipulate dignity to hold on the this life-force. The more capitalistic a society is, the more communistic the life-force is felt. Everyone is worth something and no one should be treated inferior, because that’s a cowardly move.

It is in territorialized space that people give up their permission to be treated with respect and allowed for supperiors to insult them so they could “learn to be better men.” If someone insulted you and a person receives pleasure off your bad-hurt, he or she is called a sadist. But in territorialized space, where everyone acts like an adult, the insult would train the one who was insulted to become more resilient, in other words, there is no such thing as words that can hurt you, only ones that build you up. So the sadist became an altruist in territorialized space. This is the spirit of capitalism. This spirit is desired by everyone that wants to injure a person without them knowing. This is the insult at it’s finest. Being able to injure a person internally is the stencil of modern day revenge. But to do it in a way that the plane of which their enemy’s inner city, crumbles as time moves on. There’s a catastrophic calamity that puts the enemy into a depressive state where the initial conditions where set up by the sadist. The capitalist drives oscillate around sado-masochism. The relation between the sadist and the masochist become more creative as the life-force necessary moves between winner or loser, never communally shared.

The will-to-power drives life-force into souls necessarily, that’s why successful insults are always cowardly and unfair. In territorialized space, this dynamic is clear. There is no arguing back because the insult is treated as a lesson, as a way to build up an average person in the presence of a high status person. There’s a teacher-student dynamic. The active force is the capitalist drive. Capitalists make the world go around. Capitalist are responsible for the flow of resources to impressively hold 7 billion people. Capitalists are creative about their flows of money and capital. They are responsible for the prosperity more people than ever. The unequal distribution relay in their work ethic and their production. Very few capitalists sacrifice most if not all of their lives for the benefit of the average person. They are more altruistic than all the charitable forces and the welfare forces combined. But Deleuze realized that active forces can become reactive-becoming by reactive forces impeding active forces from continuing to produce. The unequal production of flows of the capitalist to the average population is also their blindspot. As the capitalist work to advance civilization to a level no one has ever seen before, the average person who doesn’t even match their work ethic are capable to bring it down. Despite having themselves benefited by the capitalist for generations, the average person will overthrow and claim credit for all the work the capitalist sacrificed for. This is how history has always unfolded. Unfairness beats unfairness. For now the capitalist can love altruistically, meaning all the sadists who recieve pleasure from watching the average person with envy losses this ability to self-feel in territorialized space. Capitalism builds up their workers, civilians, and enemies to their level. Only those with the will to power can tug on the plane, just give it a little nudge to induce rage onto a person. With enough codified feedback loops, socioeconomic status, wit, and whim, the sadist can conduct an inception to just about anyone he or she wants.

This memory that the loser has of himself is informed by the collective negative feedback loops society codified starting from a homeostasis at the beginning of humankind

Everything feedback loops back to the present. Pretending your feelings are not hurt will just upgrade the system to take that into account. It ruins it for everyone else once enough people contribute to the feedback loop. The way people can genuinely self-feel in this complected chess game of life is to use a buffer strategy. An example would be when someone clings to an ideology. There, you can join a winning group and the combined forces of the group can win life-force from another groups’ souls. A political group, a religion, an institution, an ideology, or culture are buffers. A business is not a buffer because businesses and commerce produces physical currency. People are looking to materialize their souls. This roundabout way did not appear intentionally. This is the consequences of negative feedback loop from the weak, those who protect themselves against the wolves. Those who study the reactive brain. Those who hoard the life-force to themselves and poison the entire well. Those with ressentiment.

Let’s say someone identify with an ideology because they want to be on the winning side where they can catch their opponents in a stupid moment. They want a moment where they can humiliate their opponent losing face and self-feel off of their humiliation. As mentioned before, this humiliation can serve for the loser as a learning opportunity. Sadists do not want this transaction to serve as a learning opportunity. The sadists in the community or group want to conduct an inception. Like mentioned in one of my previous posts, an inception is where a memory is formed in the mind of the loser in that he is branded a loser, stupid, or an idiot. Society’s coded contractual agreement has it that the loser recognizes himself inside the mind of the sadist. The sadist agrees to recognize the loser inside of him. The sadist continuously humiliates his opponent through pseudo-telekinetic torture and perpetually self-feels. This memory that the loser has of himself is informed by the collective negative feedback loops society codified starting from a homeostasis at the beginning of humankind. The loser perpetually losses life-force because he is locked into an inception that the sadist implanted in him. Recognition is defined as, “you bear[ing] obligations to treat her in a certain way, that is, you recognize a specific normative status of the other person” As mentioned in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. But if the loser becomes a masochist meaning that he genuinely self-deprecates, then the sadist is revealed too much of a coward and no life-force transfers. At its core, the conflict is proper. The conflict is fair in that it is written contractually that the humiliation is welcomed as form of learning experience. The sadist would rather have a worthy opponent in that the opponent is mentally stable and inept so that things naturally unfold. A play where the opponent is willing to self-deprecate indicates the person is mentally unsuited for an inception. So the sadist must build his opponent up before conducting an inception. This is where capitalistic altruism is born. The true capitalist love is building a person mentally well enough for him to torture himself to the fullest.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/recognition/

Featured

On Cowardice, Atheists vs. believer

Some say a coward someone who lacks courage. In recent times, a coward is someone who runs away from responsibility. In times of war, many militaries deal with AWOL (Absent without leave) soldiers differently. Militaries punishes dissenters by serving prison time and a few centuries ago, they killed them in public to deter others from going AWOL. Justifiably so because 1) dissenters weaken the morale of troops, and 2) encourage others to run away in times when they are needed most. A warrior or soldier, trained for fighting and defending, when in the hour of need decide to betray friends, family, and country, is a coward for fleeing for his or her life. By the end of this essay, we’ll discuss how the skeptic’s loving always always fails to attain life-force from the altruistic believer.

The Bully

Another definition of a coward is someone who takes advantage of someone else who can’t defend himself. Say, a bully in the school yard that has physical strength to pick on the little guy. Schools are places where one can observe the nature of humans undomesticated. As children who are born innocent begin to learn how to operate in society, boys in particular learn that strength is not cowardliness. In schools, it’s not just strength that capacitates bullies with intimidation, but attitude. Schools in lower income are treated like a prison. They façade resembles like prison when built in the middle of the slums. They have to make the stronger kid the coward. The child who is hubris, who learns to have fun, disobeys authority, shares genuine experiences, breaks windows, invites friends over, and live as children are supposed to live, can also be the bully. Then there’s the accountant child who begins to adapt by obeying. They learn about the world too quickly and close themselves up. They carry the poison of weakness in the playground. Despite obeying grownups and wanting to be like them, they don’t want to grow up. The bully picks on the little guy because he can. The accountant child becomes a recluse.

How to suck the life out of someone

The laws of nature obeys because of the Will-to-power. The Will-to-Power answers the “why” in causation. As established in Will-to-power and the quest for symbolic immortality, physics is the study of forces. All phenomena, ideas, and bodies carry both reactive and reactive forces within. The tension between the conflicting forces vitalizes in a way where active forces “take” identity away from the reactive forces. But active forces are not in conflict with reactive forces. Only reactive forces react to everything the active forces affirm. Reactive forces react because reactive forces are fully capacitated by the Will-to-Power to do so. However, all forces exists in the context of all external forces acting on it. Technically, there is not an active force and a reactive force separately competing. They are just one force in sense that they share a genealogy stretching all the way back to an inception. Bullying is just a transaction just like any other transaction be it altruistic or loving transactions. There’s always a loser and a winner of identity. Adults learn to mitigate the Will-to-Power with growth. Growth is a reactive attitude towards death in that adults want to “live their childhoods properly” before they die. This is the attitude of that of the accountant who don’t want to experience losses or gains of life-force at every point of juncture, articulation, or joint in society. His soul is the weak space rock bouncing and crashing by bigger space rocks. They loss life-force because they don’t have a choice. They prefer to save and accumulate life-force to protect the little they have.

The Virgin Skeptic vs the Chad Christian

Humans can not live sanely in a world that is way too big, mysterious, dangerous, complicated, and intimidating. So they partialize it. Humans pick it up, analyze, and assault it the world as if they were the bullies. They push, pull, tumble, tinker, and carbon-14 date it to observe and annotate what happens. Then they store it in a file and label it truth. They live in the Earth but don’t want to be apart of it because accepting the earth for what it is means that they are also animals. Human being with animal determinism is a disparity too hard to bear. As we participate in the giving and taking of life-force, the daily push-pull transactions to make the world go round, life-force occurs cowardly. For those who can hear it, the Will-to-Power works simply and beautifully. It takes, steal, suck, acquire, and bend life-force indifferent of any morality or feelings prevalent in culture. Every sale is an intimidation. Every advertisement a bully. Every purchase is a revenge. But only the accountant sees it as “living in the world” because they don’t want to be part “of the world” because they are cowards. Every transfer of life-force is done cowardly. I argue for a soft determinism, but I don’t affirm compatibilism. Transitions are experienced painfully, as every point of juncture falls into its components built for by accountants. Shame, embarrassment, and uncomfortable feelings come out as an opportunity for the strong person to self-feel. This is the most authentic way to live in a capitalist economy. It helps us turn more hubristic and less accountant. If hubrists are cowards, its because it is a virtue. Just like hypocrisy. But the accountant wants to “live livie in the world but not of it”. He wants a world glossed over for him. Yes there are jobs to do, positions to apply for, raises to ask for, deals to negotiate, girls to ask out, death to happen, but these “articulations” should happen smoothly. That if one is afraid to accept responsibility for entering into marriage or asking a crush out on a date that that decision alone should carry momentum to the next step. To the accountant, the world is a giant bully

Just like a boy learns to avoid certain hallways at school, learns to run, escape, and react to everything. With religion, beliefs are attacked because it is the soul’s life line. Think of the atheist, he wants for someone faithful their entire life to abandon their belief system at the end of life. The atheist wants to tell him that his religion is fake and take credit for pain he assumes will take part. He wants to self-feel in a loving way. The most inauthentic way to self-feel is through loving because the taker is assuming that he won life-force while in fact, he is leaving the life-force on the table. The Will-to-Power doesn’t happen in someone’s mind. It happens in the objective world according to accountants. An atheist might admit he takes life-force by ‘respecting one’s beliefs’, but he has to confirm that fact. Did a transaction happen? Was life-force confirmed? The the loving skeptic self-feel? The giver (the believer) did not in fact give the life-force because there was not argument done through loving. Does the skeptic spew out facts to watch the believer life drain away from his eyes as he falls into an eternal sleep? If he does, he’s a coward. “If only he knew the facts,” the atheist murmurs to himself.

Featured

Vitalism

Will and Arial Durant, two historians who wrote The Lessons of History noted that as astronomers took photographs of the Earth from space, it became clear just how overshadowed the Earth was relative to everything else. For the first time the threat of a belief in a god was so personal that people reinforced their belief in religion more than ever. The contrast between outer space and a personal god became so clear, it put into motion elements of the psyche that, given a few generations, had people claw at each other for life they desperately felt they deserved. Society then, turned inward. Just as scientists abandoned the world of the very large (planets, gravity) society scolded at the large centers of authority, institution, government, monopolies. They prefered smaller, individual packets of authority spread over the city. Scientists preferred to study the very small. Atoms! “Somewhere, in the absolute limit of space-time, should lie meaning,” they reasoned. So, focusing their microscopes, splitting the atom, and then the protons, what did they find? What they came up against with? The quanta world was too mysterious but at the same time, promising. As technology also became smaller, narrower, and intrusive with the discovery of the quantam realm, society confined and micromanaged it self so that every single joint, and articulation was invaded. But pay attention to the verbs physicists associate with quantum mechanics: “probability, chance, luck, uncertainty. These are the words nihilists have to work with to come up with any meaning. Society is now hitting a crisis of meaning at an intensity never before experienced. At least in observing the very big, one could fall enamoured with harmony in the orderliness of planets and their perfect ellipses, eclipses, and geometries. But it is now clear that beneath these perfect shapes a foundational disparity.

Lovecraftian horrers are hard to come to peace with

Reality comes to enphenominate with disparity or discrepancy. For example think of the age of the universe; we have deep-time, the time that is so uncomfortable for us to think about with ease. Deep-time is the time that moves continents, destroys mountains, allows species to evolve, stars to shift and move, suns created and destroyed. We are but a fraction of a fraction of a second compared to the timeline of deep-time. All this time needed to form a habitable planet to sustain and maintain an infinitesimal portion of life. I call this property vitalism, the need for dependent forces to represent a disparity in quantity and quality to enphenomenate existence. Reactive forces rests as a base and loses identity to, or incorporates either part of itself to or entirely to, active forces to enphenominate.

When I think about how vitalism affect us, I think about A Clockwork Orange, the film by Stanley Kubrick. Our minds are infinite, it can ponder about atoms and asteroids, time travel to the dinosaurs or to the beginning of life itself, but it is constrained by the limits of biological physiology, of which obeys the laws and properties of the universe. So when biology is stuffed into mechanical orderliness, the parasympathetic nerves wakes up like a loud alarm. When these elements manifests itself disfavorable to us, probability, chaos, exponentials, compounding, luck, chance, unequalness, uneven-ness, displacement, skewed, and uncertainty, feels so unfair . But when we fall favorable to it, it’s the status quo. If Schopenhauer lived today, he’d ascribe these experiences painful if they would manifest negatively but when manifested positively, the experience would not match the same intensity of the negative.

Regarding enphenomenation

This is where I talk about vitalism at every level of the physical reductionism “ladder.” There exists a harmony, a purgatory, where Dionysian limbs rests on reactive forces. Think of the “wetness” that emerges from an uncountable number of water molecules to make a cup of water. Or the homeostasis of a body of which the physical molecules must obey without fail so the body could counteract the extremes of elements. Or the economic systems by which each individual must operate faithfully, like organs to a body, for vitalism to create an economic system with life of its own. A large component of reactive forces supply autonomy at the base to a small component of active forces. This is the dogmatic image of thought scientists injected into its sciences, public relations speak to its press, businessmen pay into their business, and politicians into its laws, that accelerates the slave individual. If you ponder population economics, the vast number of people that need to be at the bottom, “lower/ working class,” in order for the small elites to “find themselves” and “self-actualize” is normally acceptable.

Think about the environmental condition needed for our neolithic or paleolithic ancestors to procreate and raise offspring. All predators left at bay after becoming apex predator in the food chain is still there. Now, our survival energy is mitigated in such a way that the necessary violence between simpler-evolved organisms are still engaging in the battle for life. It’s just that we crossed a threshold that we have all these vitals working for us. In quantum mechanics most elementary particle exists to only be destroyed immediately. A ridiculous amount of self-decaying elementary particles are disproportionately sacrificed constantly, giving the necessary condition for a more fundamental particle to live a little more than that. Something like 8×10^-12 seconds is the lifespan for a mueon to exist in the cosmos. The abundance of these elementary particles needed to be sacrificed constantly must be insane. As we climb the ladder of physicalism to form quarks, chromodynamics lets us see how energy of these elementary particles engage in quantum fields similar to thermodynamics when gasses and atoms exists in a system. And on and on we find the same engagement mirror the scale as we size up.

What to do when autonomy becomes distributed?

Think about population economics where a large portion of the populations needed to obey ecological rules, for a subset of species to be “free-er”. In society, it is expensive for a lower status man to “find himself” than it is for a higher status person. Like mentioned above, we scale down every aspect of sovereign space to be micromanaged and owned. The consequences are that every interaction between two or more people is a stand off of life-force. We are invited to behave like atoms or else we’d be insulted. Soon, society will behave like elementary particles, 90% of the population consistently loose life-force to the 10% of those who “self-actualize.” It’s not like these 10% of high-status people wake up one day as say “I’m going to find my true purpose… but it happens necessarily. At a hypothetical city, a large portion of people would work intensive blue-collar labor for the higher-status people to sit in chair to get paid for thinking really hard. At the turn of the century, these intensive labour jobs got shipped oversees where the population lies in the billions, like china, India, and soon Africa. So now the new lower-status people of our city, will be service level jobs. Capitalism praises this altruistic move to vitalize. Better living conditions is the “new” lower class. While in fact, all the necessary hard labour is mitigated into this microscale micromanaged society where spaces are invaded. Now, our souls do all the fighting. All the strangers are subject for life-force life prey are in the jungle. Its survival of the fittest soul. And the faintest glance at a person, as people become isolated, becomes animosity. Every space is now fair game for the soul to conduct an inception.

Featured

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.

A case for new personality: Accountants vs hubris

Introduction and Warning

It’s unpopular to divide the world into two. When someone says, “there are two kinds of men in this world…” well, I’ll divide the world into two, 3 times. ‘Hearers’ vs. ‘seerer’, Microevents vs. macro events, and accountant personality vs, hubris personality. So, there are the only two types of personalities in this world. They are the hubristic type and the accountant type. The definition of hubris is an extreme confidence or excessive self-importance in oneself. The archetype I think of the hubris is the talkative, demonstrative, and expressive extrovert but not always. There are introverts who are very confident but only referring to the contexts of the modus operandi. Likewise, we can archetypically think about the accountant as the perfectionist introvert with glasses who needs to take things into account.

Micro and macro events

Before I go on, we need to divide the world further into two. There are two ways of viewing the world. There are macro events and micro events. Like the label suggests, macro events are the big events in people’s lives. They can be thought of as milestones in a typical life of a person. These events tend to stick out like a sore thumb. These events would be the birth of a baby, their first birthday, their first day of school, graduation, their first job, a raise, termination of employment, first kiss, sex, marriage, purchase of a home, vacation, retirement and death. Macro events are important in that they involve gatherings or photoshoots to keep these memories forever. Then there are micro events in that they are are little steps necessary to get to the macro events. These are thought out in two ways, (1) nuisance, or (2) filler. If its a nuisance, micro events are just steps that nobody wants to take but are necessary. They aren’t the ‘feature presentation,’ but a chore, an obligation, something that is done with hands dragging across the floor. These . are the events in between macro events and are seen as a chore to many. Micro events could be viewed as filler in the sense that they are there to fill in the time. Everybody wants to get to the big event, quinceñeras, birthday parties, and vacations and people need something to do until their 15th birthday come about or work 40 years until till retirement. There can also be negative macro events like, death of a loved one, termination of a job, tests and exams. Even these are more preferable than the grinding and painfully boring runite of microevents. Sometimes.

The synesthetic argument for personality

We can make a better analogy than the extrovert being akin to the hubris and the introvert being akin to the accountant. There are two kinds of people in this world, seers and hearers. ‘Hearers’ are people who prefer to listen to rather than observe phenomena and vise versa. ‘Hearers’ use the biologically-intact faculties of the ear to observe the world around them. They almost use their ear as an eye. For example, the ear is divided into 3 main parts, outer ear, mid-ear, and inner ear, all have crucial functions in translating sound waves to perceived sound. One might have an existential crisis learning about how the biology of the ear works. The eardrum vibrates depending on sound wave frequencies of which connects to a 3-structure bone behind the eardrum of which connects into the cochlea where receptors take in information for the perceiving mind to interpret. In roughly the same manner, the hearer take in the world but in a way that needs to be interpreted first. Similar to the physical outer ear, our lives are like a dish that captures moments and events to be processed first. To a ‘hearer’, time is omnidirectional, similar to how a sound wave exists in the objective world. Events come in all directions and have to use all the senses in nonlinear time.

We live in an ocular-centric world. Our sight is placed top priority on top of other senses. We prefer to decipher a photo to tell us a story rather than read a book. This is because reading takes processing much like listening does. When you are reading, you phonetically ‘hear’ the words in your head, then you can ‘picture’ it in your mind. We prefer to watch a movie rather than listen to the radio. So the hearer living in an ocular-centric society can become overwhelmed or over stimulated. It’s almost like every color, sound, picture, note, light, loudness, all combine into a cacophony that beats and drums you into disorientation. Lucky for the seer, he or she lives in a world made for him/her. The world is what it appears to be. The seer simply sees the world and can accept it for what it is with every saccade. Every event lasts a millisecond and that’s just fine for the ‘seer’ because the world doesn’t need to remain permanent for the seer to appreciate it. Unlike the hearer for who the world needs to stick or remain for him to appreciate it. Think about a catchy song that gets stuck in your head. It’s a catchy tune, but it stays there repeating over and over again and you can’t get it out. This is a characteristic of the hearer, his events tend to stay for a while, good or bad events, but mostly the bad, embarrassing events tend to stay. Like an earworm. The ‘seer’ uses the seccades. Saccades are the micromovements of the eyes that move rapidly in a microsecond. This is the way seers ‘see’ their world meaning they could move on without giving much thought into what events transpired. Seers prefer to listen to rhythmically intense music, flat chorus but lighty, jumpy tunes. Hearers love to experience the bass or the refrain. They prefer deeper and mysterious music that they could play around with every repeat.

The Hubris VS Accountant

You already know who I’m going to connect in this Rhizome, the hearers are the accountants and the seers are the hubris, The accountants are more that willing to accept the necessity of going through microevents. For the accountants, it is important to take in every little event and decipher its meaning because the accountant need to interpret the in all its joints and articulation. Accountants stop at every transition point, as if to analyze closely first, then he can move on. ‘Hearers’ are very sensitive to every comment and statement, thus, to protect from other’s inceptions, we need an accurate modus operandi, or the closest objective truth of the world we can possible get. The accountant gets overwhelmed but still needs these microevents to pass smoothly. He sees the world as macro events with little articulations and joints that must ‘fix’ itself as it comes along. He soon finds out that the world isn’t like a song that can be glossed over. I mean, these microevents are just little talking points, just pieces of the world that can be resolved with small talk. For an accountant man to get a date, he thinks of how he can stumble into a crowd of eligible bachelorettes, (as if they are hanging around in the in the middle of a bookstore), and can casually walk over to meet one. His “accidental” eye contact should carry momentum over to “casually ask for directions” which should gradually turn into light conversation. From this effort, it should carry on over to ask for her number and go on and on until boom… sex. If you’re an accountant girl, you might happen to trip and fall into a guy who caught you with his arms in time and all these micro events leading up the macro events should contain within them momentum already imbedded within.

Hubris personality type, on the other hand, may or may not accept the necessity of micro events, but he disregards their importance altogether. Because of their indifferent attitudes towards microevents, they treats them all more or less the same. He uses the force of the will but to the hubris, he isn’t thinking about steps. He just lives for the macro events that he makes macro events out of the microevents. The hubris have confidence in themselves and not in the micro events containing the ingredients to get you to the macros.

Featured

Will to power and the quest for symbolic immortality

Regarding that other post about the modus operandi, it is hard to know the winner of that “life-force” because anyone can claim a superior argument or strategy. The last example could’ve been between two strangers or two family members who know on how to get at each other’s worst side. The transference of life-force involves lots of nuances but because the will to power is in everything and exudes a gravity-like capacity to bleed into every crack and crevice, the transference necessarily take place. A superficial read on Nietzsche claims is that the one who holds the will to power is the winner. Those who really understand Nietzsche understand that it is not by scientific, utilitarian, or fact-based force that an agent possess the will to power. It is the agent who happen to be on the side of the will to power.

However, a body which contains forces contains both its active force and its reactive force to give the body a tension-only existence. Out of which a body can only exist from tension. Deleuze explains in extreme detail that forces obey the will-to-power in a way that encompasses all net-forces within a body, thing, or phenomena. And that the way we know of forces (motion, gravity, weak nuclear force, thermodynamics, ect.), is that we (of which consist of forces ourselves), act on that body and that body reveals itself back to us. This ‘revealing itself back to us’ is known as ‘effect’ and we take it in and quantify it. This legacy measuring a body of its reactive-ness is known as physics. What is physics? The study of force and motion. Deleuze’s interpretation of Nietzsche gives an account for forces that is not based on us using reactions firstly to observe its effects, but by making an account of its genealogy or difference of forces. There are active and reactive forces and motion occurs when reactive forces reacts to the active forces. All forces within an object, let’s say a brick, if we were to move it by pushing it with our hand, we would apply a force to it. We could see it’s movement and give it a quantitative unit of measurement. We arbitrarily gave the force that makes one kilogram of mass to move one meter per second, a Newton as a unit of measurement. We can also calculate friction, chemical reactions, gravity, and other forces the same way but only after we do something it first. But Deleuze says that quantitative representations of forces “zero” the scales. As if we might put a weight on a scale, and we fixed the scale to make it zero. It does not take into account all net forces and certainly not genealogical forces. Deleuze talks about Dionysus limbs in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. A qualitative force demonstrate which body is doing the “pushing” and what is being “pushed.” The will-to-power is the “what makes” in my handing making the brick move.

Science as an industry that has given us outstanding breakthroughs in health, wealth, and overall living standards. But the more healthy a person is, the better he is capable to extract life-force inside the modus operandi. This cynical view challenges the notion of “progressive.” What is the progressive man if not a supercomputer for the “computational power” to perform advanced inceptions. The healthier a man can become the more intelligently self-conscious man that can feed its consciousness, making him more self-conscious. As Nietzsche puts it in the Genealogy of Morals, bad-consciousness is a force turned against itself. Imagine giving the a healthy bulky person the ability to react to a greater extent in arguments. The ultimate example is the struggle to get to the top of a meaningful life in the western corporate environment. Where is he slaughtered, murdered, torn, beaten, lynched, and curb-stomped to symbolic death, only to prove to his soul that he has conquered death when he “made it.” A soul dies millions of times before his physical death occurs. This drive is capitalism’s ultimate goal, to give the soul a proof of symbolic immortality. This insulates the anxieties about death and the soul can continue on its quest to suck life-force out of everyone who gets in his way for symbolic immortality. The cynical view explains capitalistic altruisms puts man to its limits for the sake of altruism itself. Life expectancy, health, meaning, all this to exceed his physical needs to put it to good use for this altruism. It also nourishes his weakness of which people can suck life-force that he couldn’t do to a sickly man in the 16th century. The monstrosity is the dialectic man, as opposed to the overman.

The view that the smaller and smaller we look at the observable world, the finer and finer we will be able to find and ultimately hold on to the will-to-power. Start with distant galaxies and peer into the smallest subatomic particle, there must lies The Truth hiding in plank’s length. This is what the public seem to think of quantum mechanics which dominates curiosity from the contemplative types. This is worrying as most people think that dialectics is the answer. That by using sher rational measurements, we can arrive at a conclusion that will satisfy both types, the care-free and the contemplatives.

All phenomena, forces, densities, historical events, biological systems, heat systems, everything, is inherently unstable. As mentioned earlier, all bodies contain within themselves both active and reactive forces. The relationship as to which is dominant and which is dominated is known as qualitative forces. Start from the smallest subatomic particle and we can conclude that forces obey according to the will-to-power but properties seem to emerge differently as we move from atoms to molecules to tissues to organs and so on. Deleuze describes Nietzsche’s concepts of Dionysus’s limbs as this phenomena of properties emerging at every jump (physics vs chemistry vs biology vs ecology vs sociology vs astronomy). The doctrine of physical reductionism explain properties of forces that results as a Dionysian limb, making it seem that forces are separate or significantly disattached from others. Subatomic particles vibrate, excite and bounce off each other at high speeds. Water molecules are a jumbled mess of vibrating hydrogen and oxygen atoms but one can look at a tranquil lake and see it as anything but chaotic. It’s rather nice, calm, peaceful and still. Even a block of concrete that seem like an object onto itself, is composed of an uncountable number of atoms each of them with their corresponding strong forces, weak forces, nuclear forces and gravitational forces in a war with each other to dominate. This war is what allows the block to exist according to science. So we can push it and measure its force in Newtons implying that all forces we just mentioned gets zero’d out into that unit of measurement. By its shear number, emergent property of “wetness” or heaviness emerge. Atoms themselves are not “wet” nor do they have any weight in the sense that we experience weight.

The doctrine of physical reductionism is that there’s a fundamental truth the more we piece up the world because the simplicity. We open up the body, the organ, the cell, the molecule, the atom, the quark until, there lies an answer. So with that brick example, moving it and calculating the force is relative. Einstein’s equations put every motion into context. The block sits on a piece of earth which sits on The Earth, which revolves around the sun, of which exists in the solar system of which is apart of the Milky Way Galaxy and so on. Every level out, forces are moving at speeds so great. But Einstein’s special theory of relativity goes to the conclusion that gravity is the bending of space-time and motion is the body’s weight “falling” into the curvature of 3 dimensional space-time. So Physics is really just the study of forces. Let say an asteroid, came floating into space and came in contact with another asteroid, the larger asteroid moves the smaller asteroid into motion. We can calculate everything we need to know about them by observing. The “how” is the dialectic question, the “why” is the genealogical question. The will-to-power of those two asteroids coming from an initial state is set arbitrary. The dominating force of the larger asteroid (let say, it broke off from an even bigger space rock but still bigger than that of the smaller asteroid) of which came from a previous state, of which came from a previous one and on and on. We have an eternal regression until we get the entire universe compressed into one singularity that existed at one point. Even space-time itself as well as all of existence converge into this infinitesimal point and BOOM!

Deleuze criticizes the physical reductionism, dialectics, and this rationalism that imposes representation as the Will to power. What this reductionist, dialectical view does is it affirms a soft-determinism in everything. As the big-bang explodes, what follows is just one event, the consequence. Expansion. This shallow explanations leaves us with more questions than answered. Both Deleuze and Nietzsche wants us to affirm life as it is because it contains the entire genealogical forces already as it is affirmed. This is what he means by “the being of the becoming.” If people in an argument can be analogous to who represent the qualitative forces, of course there will be a modus operandi where capitalistic drives manipulate the clueless into becoming represented rather that willed. The one who insults can be seen as active force, but can also become reactive as the one insulted can be the aggressor in return. The one who pretends to be “the bigger man who doesn’t give a fuck” is the active or dominating force but can become-reactive. If he affirms to his opponent’s ideology, political, nihilistic, communistic, capitalistic ideology, his opponent can conduct an inception. This affirmation is done deterministically because the dialectic minded-person is just a carbon based molecule floating in a habitable space rock in space. If inception is analogous to the qualitative forces and the modus operandi as the will to power life-force simply flows. If one becomes triggered because he emotionally reacted to what his opponent said, he triggered himself. And his opponent takes advantage necessarily rather than willingly. He can leave and admit defeat (being the bigger man) his soul can demand to finish triumphantly even though its a petty matter. His body can urge him to go back and “teach him a lesson.” But the soul is not a physical state like his biological body or his nervous system. The soul can use these mediums (with the help and power of the prefrontal cortex), and affirm his state or disaffirms it. And this is not under his control but that of the will-to-power.

Capitalism and the Materialist Soul

Everybody knows that money isn’t the thing it is. “Money is just a piece of paper,” we say. The common belief of the history of money is that before paper or coin money, the standered currency was gold and other precious metals. Before that, we had, more-or-less, a barter economy – an apple would pay for two oranges for example. Once society gets overly complex, basic receprocity falls apart because everyone’s wants diffent things at different times. Therefore a common currency was established to acount for time and aninimony (a medium of exchange).

The soul of each individual works in a similar way. Just as the amount of money determines how much of a product, service, or standard of living we can obtain, the soul must obtain “life” to even be worthy to remain alive… symbolically. What else can the soul do without physical boundaries? How did the soul came to be? And how will it’s quest to become immortal affect actual life, biological or otherwise? In this blog, I will attempt to use contemporary thought to describe new possibilities of living in this exhaustive world of currency. I will use the influences of radical French theorists like Gillis Deleuze and Felix Guatarri as well as structuralist, post structuralism, and existential philosophies. I’ll use my training I received in the modern educational system of the United States, life experience, and solo-prenureship ventures to talk about physics, history, psychology, business, technology. I don’t want this blog to be “a book about a book” or “a book about other books” (which is what textbook actually are if you think about it), but rather, create a new physics, new society, and new psychology of possibility.