Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals Essay 1, section 10.


Quote:

The slave revolt in morality begins when the resentment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the resentment of those beings who are prevented from a genuinely active reaction and who compensate for that with a merely imaginary vengeance. While all noble morality grows out of a triumphant self-affirmation, slave morality from the start says “No” to what is “outside,” “other,” “a non-self”. And this “No” is its creative act. This transformation of the glance which confers value—this necessary projection towards what is outer instead of back onto itself—that is inherent in resentment. In order to arise, slave morality always requires first an opposing world, a world outside itself. Psychologically speaking, it needs external stimuli in order to act at all. Its action is basically reaction. The reverse is the case with the noble method of valuing: it acts and grows spontaneously. It seeks its opposite only to affirm itself even more thankfully, with even more rejoicing. Its negative concept of “low,” “common,” “bad” is only a pale contrasting image after the fact in relation to its positive basic concept, thoroughly intoxicated with life and passion, “We are noble, good, beautiful, and happy!” When the noble way of evaluating makes a mistake and abuses reality, that happens with reference to the sphere which it does not know well enough, indeed, the sphere it has strongly resisted learning the truth about: under certain circumstances it misjudges the sphere it despises—the sphere of the common man, the low people.  While the noble man lives for himself with trust and candour (gennaios, meaning “of noble birth” stresses the nuance “upright” and also probably “naïve”); the man of resentment is neither upright nor naïve, nor honest and direct with himself. His soul squints. His spirit loves hiding places, secret paths, and back doors. Everything furtive attracts him as his world, his security, his refreshment. He understands about remaining silent, not forgetting, waiting, temporarily diminishing himself, humiliating himself. A race of such men of resentment will necessarily end up cleverer than any noble race. It will value cleverness to a very different extent, that is, as a condition of existence of the utmost importance; whereas, cleverness among noble men easily acquires a delicate aftertaste of luxury and sophistication about it. Here it is not nearly so important as the complete certainly of the ruling unconscious instincts or even a certain lack of cleverness, something like brave recklessness, whether in the face of danger or of an enemy, or wildly enthusiastic, sudden fits of anger, love, reverence, thankfulness, and vengefulness, by which in all ages noble souls have recognized each other. The resentment of the noble man himself, if it comes over him, consumes and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction and therefore does not poison. On the other hand, in countless cases it just does not appear at all; whereas, in the case of all weak and powerless people it is unavoidable. The noble man cannot take his enemies, his misfortunes, even his bad deeds seriously for very long—that is the mark of strong, complete natures, in whom there is a surplus of plastic, creative, healing power, as well as the power to forget (a good example for that from the modern world is Mirabeau, who had no memory of the insults and maliciousness people directed at him, and who therefore could not forgive, because he just forgot). Such a man with a single shrug throws off himself all those worms which eat into other men. Only here is possible (provided that it is at all possible on earth) the real “love for one’s enemy.” How much respect a noble man already has for his enemies! And such a respect is already a bridge to love . . . In fact, he demands his enemy for himself, as his mark of honour. Indeed, he has no enemy other than one who has nothing to despise and a great deal to respect! By contrast, imagine for yourself “the enemy” as a man of resentment conceives him—and right here we have his action, his creation: he has conceptualized “the evil enemy,” “the evil one,” as a fundamental idea—and from that he now thinks his way to an opposite image and counterpart, a “good man”—himself!

Quote:

slave morality from the start says “No” to what is “outside,” “other,” “a non-self”. And this “No” is its creative act. This transformation of the glance which confers value—this necessary projection towards what is outer instead of back onto itself—that is inherent in resentment. In order to arise, slave morality always requires first an opposing world, a world outside itself. Psychologically speaking, it needs external stimuli in order to act at all. Its action is basically reaction.

This sums up most movements today. All movements that begin by negating power structures fall into this morality. Think of the list: Feminism and anarchism are probably the two major groups, but socialists and other forms of cultural Marxism feature here. Even libertarians (which is really a form of anarchism anyway) seem to begin by negating the 'other'. 


Quote:

The reverse is the case with the noble method of valuing: it acts and grows spontaneously. It seeks its opposite only to affirm itself even more thankfully, with even more rejoicing. Its negative concept of “low,” “common,” “bad” is only a pale contrasting image after the fact in relation to its positive basic concept, thoroughly intoxicated with life and passion, “We are noble, good, beautiful, and happy!”

I am unaware of any movement today that has this position. You can find it in the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and probably the Germanic tribes before Christianisation, but which movement today fully affirms itself before negating its 'other'?

You can find traces of it in military circles, also in conservative thought, particularly those that embrace their historical lineage, but today's conservative movements are too wrapped up in defining itself against the socialists.

Although, there is the problem of dialectics and how can it be escaped. I am not sure you can remove yourself from the socio-political forces of tension and resistance. Still, I believe the differences between the two moralities outlined by Nietzsche can serve as a guide to what is noble or slavish.

Quote:

There is nothing more fearful than a barbaric slave-class which has learnt to regard its existence as an injustice and is preparing to take revenge not just for itself but for all generations

Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy

The evidence suggests that feminism is probably the most pure form of slave morality. It has invented nothing; it is purely a reactive movement because its sole purpose is to negate power structures. While they blame the "patriarchy" for "oppressing" them, they have no idea of what a non-patriarchal identity of women would, or should, be. Even the ideals of equality and egalitarianism were invented by men (Christians of all people; that must really burn the feminists inside!).

If you're suggesting that Christian society was the first to espouse the emancipation of women, then I disagree.  There is nothing special about the Christian religion that encourages that, and it has only been in the last 100 years or so that women have made any inroads in that respect.  That has largely due to secular influences, and secularism developed in spite of Christianity rather than as a result of it. Its roots are in Deism, which always stood out from Christianity, and was almost entirely at odds with Christianity. 

The story of Hypatia is a good illustration of the contrast between Pre-Christian Roman-Egyptian society and the emerging Christian religion in terms of their attitudes towards women. If there ever was a dark age, that was when it began.

Etruscan women for example were far more emancipated than any purely Christian society, to the extent that they retained their family names in marriage, and enjoyed as much freedom as men in their society. 

http://cornellia.fws1.com/etruscan_women.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6cwPRovVXI

While I don't doubt that emancipation of some description was a theme in other cultures across time, the problem is that they are so far removed from modernity that they have no influence on the modern conception of rights.

Modern individual rights stem from Protestantism. The Protestants took away the power of the clergy and handed it over to "the people." While its beginnings would still seem "fascist" to us today, the Protestants got the ball rolling in regards to the rights of the individual over the community. This is why it's dominantly the North Western European countries that have lead the charge against "authority." The Southern European countries are still reasonably conservative because Catholicism is dominant there, not Protestantism. And the East, where modernity is still yet to grasp hold, is still very conservative.

Deism simply borrows many ideas from Christianity, but uses a different methodology (observation, reason over Platonism). The concept of "natural rights" was really just a secular version of the (supposed) dignity of man given by "god" or "nature."

What is interesting today is that the cultural Marxists often use this "natural dignity of man" to justify its rage (just like how the rage and murder of the French Revolution was justified), but will not acknowledge the source of this "dignity." In fact, it's as if they believe they invented it; and all others (re-conservatives) are the dumb, barbarian "other."

You do realise that your own position on "leftists" is complete slave morality, don't you, Mistie? This is exactly what Neitzsche is talking about.

I'd like to be more "noble", but I'm aware that there's still some slave morality in me too. I love a good whinge.

I am fully aware of my own disposition; probably more so than anyone. Yet, I reject the notion that I am a slave to the extent that the leftists are. Leftism, in general, is predicated on negating power structures, particularly those they deem "oppressive." Power structures for myself are seen as a challenge, and a necessary and natural part of what human beings do.

It comes down to an attitude. Resentment, acceptance, or an attractive challenge?

However, we are so far in the mire of tensions and resistances of other perspectives today that an escape into a complete noble disposition may seem impossible. Dialectics was actually the invention of the slave, not the master. That was the slave's way of getting on top. He couldn't do it physically, because the original noble castes were also the warrior caste. Warrior castes are not known for their intelligence in writing large treatise; but they were experts at maintaining order through force. And they did it with a good conscience; they were the "happy and cheerful." It was the slave with his introjection of the bad conscience into the noble caste that saw the downfall of the noble. And with the bad conscience came pessimism toward aggression of any kind. So, as stated, we are now so deep in the mire of dialectics that a complete removal from it seems impossible. Not only that, a ruling caste that uses nothing but force today is not an option.

I search, often in vain, for a movement today that projects into the future based on a faith and confidence in itself, rather than beginning by negating its enemies and then coming up with some ideals after the fact. The nationalists are the only groups that comes close to a noble ideal, whereby they embrace their past and project this into the future (with a good conscience), but even the nationalists have their serial negators who predicate the whole thing on hating Muslims or socialists; moreover, some just have a status quo feel about them.

I think we are stuck with dialectics, though. We need an intelligent movement, plus one with balls. And this can't be done without learning from (and subsequently lambasting) the pessimism and mistakes of the cultural Marxists.

A good video outlining nobility of spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ6WbmWU0QI

That's all very fluffy MM, but most advances in societies come from the unsung heroes who demand no credit.

Behold the leaders who charge from the rear.

Morning Mist,

Thank you for [#8] that YT link.

I enjoyed that.

I can not disagree with any of it.

Haha, the 'message' in the Standard Deviation [normal distribution] curve, 'spoke to me'.        ::)




+++

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Psalms 27:8
When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.

Amadd wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

That's all very fluffy MM, but most advances in societies come from the unsung heroes who demand no credit. Behold the leaders who charge from the rear.

IMO, most advances [in societies] come from those who seek to excel, in what they do.

Who seek to excel, above the efforts of their peers ?

Yadda wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:48am:

Amadd wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: That's all very fluffy MM, but most advances in societies come from the unsung heroes who demand no credit. Behold the leaders who charge from the rear. IMO, most advances [in societies] come from those who seek to excel, in what they do. Who seek to excel, above the efforts of their peers ?

What was the name of the guy who invented the wheel?  ;)
Maybe it was a woman.

Amadd wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 9:29am:

Yadda wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:48am: Amadd wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: That's all very fluffy MM, but most advances in societies come from the unsung heroes who demand no credit. Behold the leaders who charge from the rear. IMO, most advances [in societies] come from those who seek to excel, in what they do. Who seek to excel, above the efforts of their peers ? What was the name of the guy who invented the wheel?  ;) Maybe it was a woman.

Yes, maybe it was a woman.

Who knows ?




Amadd,

But i can still guarantee, that the first person who constructed a cart [with an axle and two wheels] and then took his/her produce to market on his/her cart [instead of on his/her back], STARTED A TREND IN CART MAKING.

Amadd wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 9:29am:

Yadda wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:48am: Amadd wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: That's all very fluffy MM, but most advances in societies come from the unsung heroes who demand no credit. Behold the leaders who charge from the rear. IMO, most advances [in societies] come from those who seek to excel, in what they do. Who seek to excel, above the efforts of their peers ? What was the name of the guy who invented the wheel?  ;) Maybe it was a woman.

His name was Septimus R. Wheel.

Quote:

Amadd, But i can still guarantee, that the first person who constructed a cart [with an axle and two wheels] and then took his/her produce to market on his/her cart [instead of on his/her back], STARTED A TREND IN CART MAKING.

Without doubt Yadda. Who wouldn't jump on a good idea?
Before the days of patents, the idea was most probably usurped leaving the originator with little or no credit.
The focus of the inventer may or may not have been to outdo his/her peers. I'd say not.

The point is: There is a difference between those who focus on making themselves a person of importance to those who focus on what is important.

Amadd wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

That's all very fluffy MM, but most advances in societies come from the unsung heroes who demand no credit. Behold the leaders who charge from the rear.

Well, many geniuses are only recognized posthumously, so I agree with the point about getting little credit. But nobility of spirit ought to sound "fluffy" to many people. Imposing form on the chaos of passions one is, is a very esoteric endeavour. Marshalling all the wayward drives, passions, instincts, and desires one has and forging them into an ideal is for the very few. 

Quote:

His name was Septimus R. Wheel.

Hmm.. I reckon it most probably originated in China by the first ever hoon named Long Wee Lee.

Quote:

Imposing form on the chaos of passions one is, is a very esoteric endeavour. Marshalling all the wayward drives, passions, instincts, and desires one has and forging them into an ideal is for the very few.

Very few indeed.

Amadd wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Quote: Imposing form on the chaos of passions one is, is a very esoteric endeavour. Marshalling all the wayward drives, passions, instincts, and desires one has and forging them into an ideal is for the very few.  Very few indeed.

Every last one of us is defeated by our nature, to some degree.

We are all [to some degree] defeated by our passions, and by [our 'love' of] 'the world'.

It could be said that;
Though [in this life] we may come to possess many things, it is our possessions which possess us [...and make us the slaves].

And yet, in the wider measure of the struggle against our baser nature, we find that the expression of the measure of that 'struggle' is surely another normal distribution curve.
i.e.
most of us give up 'the struggle', but some of us continue to seek to improve ourselves - against our nature.
but after our 'surrender', most of us do not spend a single moment to consider the implications [upon us] of our 'bondage'.


IMAGE...
http://www.ga.gov.au/mapspecs/images/secn1_normaldistribution.jpg
A normal distribution curve







We are all defeated by our 'care', for what the temporal world can 'give' us.

But imo, to be aware that we are defeated by the world, can be regarded in itself as a small personal victory.

Our love of the temporal, is a vanity [i.e. foolishness].

To come to that knowledge is at least something, imo.



Dictionary;
temporal = =
1 of or relating to time.
2 relating to worldly affairs; secular.

Is God being 'naughty' ?           ;)            :P

What if this 'life' is a 'fixed' card game ? !!!!              :'(







Quote:

"What if 'this life' is a fixed game? i.e. What if we can't 'win', ...on purpose!"

Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1303676733/207#207

Quote:

What if this 'life' is a 'fixed' card game ? !!!!              We are all defeated by our 'care', for what the temporal world can 'give' us. But imo, to be aware that we are defeated by the world, can be regarded in itself as a small personal victory. Our love of the temporal, is a vanity [i.e. foolishness]. To come to that knowledge is at least something, imo.

In a way I suppose it is a fixed game.

Everybody has to rise above their fears and their "Coonbies"(Coonbe fkuced that is) at least to some extent.
For some, just holding a spider on their palm is facing their greatest fear, for others it's something else.

As a kid I used to have regular nightmares about being in an air disaster, but it didn't stop me from getting on planes, and now I love flying them myself.
I hope it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy  :o
But still, there's many more fears which I haven't faced.

You might say that facing your fears is going against your nature. Or is it?
Most especially for young blokes 18-25, it's completely natural...it's in the genes you might say. We may not have survived as a species if this weren't so.

So what made us like this in the first place? Was it God, or did we survive because of the random chance of how our species just happened to develop?

I already know your answer and I think you know mine  ;D

Yadda wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 10:06am:

But i can still guarantee, that the first person who constructed a cart [with an axle and two wheels] and then took his/her produce to market on his/her cart [instead of on his/her back], STARTED A TREND IN CART MAKING.

Well what really happened was that the head priests  of the tribe noticed the cart and cornered him and found out exactly how he did it. THey then spread the word among the other villagers that the inventor was using the devil's magic. They then persuaded  the villagers to burn him at the stake for being a heretic.

Several years later, the priests started making carts according to the holy laws, and all the appropriate sacrifices and prayers to their God, and started selling the sanctified carts (guaranteed demon free) to the villagers for an elevated price (then measured in mammoth meat of course)

:P

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Yadda wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 10:06am: But i can still guarantee, that the first person who constructed a cart [with an axle and two wheels] and then took his/her produce to market on his/her cart [instead of on his/her back], STARTED A TREND IN CART MAKING. Well what really happened was that the head priests  of the tribe noticed the cart and cornered him and found out exactly how he did it. THey then spread the word among the other villagers that the inventor was using the devil's magic. They then persuaded  the villagers to burn him at the stake for being a heretic. Several years later, the priests started making carts according to the holy laws, and all the appropriate sacrifices and prayers to their God, and started selling the sanctified carts (guaranteed demon free) to the villagers for an elevated price (then measured in mammoth meat of course) :P

;D

The evil of manipulation of man[kind], by religion/priests,    ...according to muso.

Yes ?




Are you going to write a treatise muso ???       :P       ;)

No. I'll settle for rattling your cage now and then.

The current predicament of postmodernity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tnPGJnOhDY

I wouldn't worry too much about the human species evolving into potato-like mutants.
We can genetically build whatever is necessary or desirable.

The bigger problem may be when super-babies start being made to order. There's a little bit of Hitler within every parent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc

It would be interesting to see if 'genetically modified humans' would lead to a culture of vigour and vitality. I have my reservations because 'experience' is key tool in a noble life. Being genetically modified might prepare you for overcoming hardship and pain, but you need the actual physical/mental experience of struggle to enhance your resistance to pain and hardship. Being simply genetically prepared you wouldn't have a wealth of experience to draw on. So, the socio-political climate needs to be one of high tension and resistance.