Dionysian Anarchism – Telegram
Dionysian Anarchism
434 subscribers
344 photos
10 videos
7 files
150 links
Egoist, communist anarchism.
Philosophical, (anti-)political quotes, memes, my original writings etc.

@AntiworkQuotes
Download Telegram
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.

Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.

And when they call themselves “the good and just,” forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but—power!


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 29)
amor fati
1
I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.


I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?


The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!

I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.

Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!


I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.

I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (prologue)
Everyone is both masculine and feminine, as well as something beyond both.

This would make sense once you really accept yourself.

Celebrate your femininity,
celebrate your masculinity,
celebrate your agenderness,
celebrate your queerness,
celebrate your uniqueness.
🔥5
I'm bit of an evil bitch... I don't have a conscience, (un)fortunately
🤡1
[Zarathustra said to himself:] “I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the last man!”

And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:

It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.

Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.

Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man—and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!

I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.

Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you the last man.

“What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?”—so asketh the last man and blinketh.

The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

“We have discovered happiness”—say the last men, and blink thereby.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one’s neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.

One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; every one is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

“Formerly all the world was insane,”—say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled—otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.

They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

“We have discovered happiness,”—say the last men, and blink thereby.—


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (prologue)
Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.

Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker:—he, however, is the creator.

Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker—he, however, is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses—and not herds or believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh—those who grave new values on new tables.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.

Fellow-creators, Zarathustra seeketh; fellow-reapers and fellow-rejoicers, Zarathustra seeketh: what hath he to do with herds and herdsmen and corpses!

And thou, my first companion, rest in peace! Well have I buried thee in thy hollow tree; well have I hid thee from the wolves.

But I part from thee; the time hath arrived. ‘Twixt rosy dawn and rosy dawn there came unto me a new truth.

I am not to be a herdsman, I am not to be a grave-digger. Not any more will I discourse unto the people; for the last time have I spoken unto the dead.

With the creators, the reapers, and the rejoicers will I associate: the rainbow will I show them, and all the stairs to the Superman.

To the lone-dwellers will I sing my song, and to the twain-dwellers; and unto him who hath still ears for the unheard, will I make the heart heavy with my happiness.

I make for my goal, I follow my course; over the loitering and tardy will I leap. Thus let my on-going be their down-going!


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (prologue)
👏32🔥1🤡1
THE THREE METAMORPHOSES.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one’s pride? To exhibit one’s folly in order to mock at one’s wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one’s hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.

Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? “Thou shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”

“Thou shalt,” lieth in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, “Thou shalt!”

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: “All the values of things—glitter on me.

All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more.” Thus speaketh the dragon.

My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?

To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do.

To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.

To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved “Thou shalt”: now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world’s outcast.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 1)
👍1
Dionysian Anarchism
To expand upon it... Nietzsche HATED the antisemites of his time, including his own sister and brother-in-law, and cut off relations with many people simply because they were antisemites. He took it so seriously that it even seems a little amazing given that…
Nietzsche, Ambedkar, Übermensch, Manu(smriti), Nazism:

B.R. Ambedkar wrote in Philosophy of Hinduism and The Hindu Social Order: Its Unique Features (see BAWS Vol III: pp. 74-77, pp. 116-124) about the (supposed) relationship and/or similarities between Nietzsche's philosophy and Manuwād, i.e., Brahmanism/Hinduism.

Ambedkar's discussion on this can be divided primarily into 3 aspects:
1. the (supposed) similarity between Nietzsche's philosophy and Manusmriti (aka Laws of Manu)
2. Nietzsche's own "inspiration" from the Manusmriti
3. Nietzsche's philosophy as the philosophy of Nazism


MY CRITIQUE:

First, it may be noted that Nietzsche was not a very systematic thinker and he even explicitly criticized systematic thinking (TotI, §1.26). So it's to be expected that he would often contradict himself, or at any rate he would not always express himself very clearly.

Now, to address these 3 arguments (they more or less overlap and so the divided response is only for convenience, there'd be overlap in it too)...


1. Ambedkar describes the brahminical scheme of Manusmriti as an ideology of "Supermen", where the Brahmins (primarily) are supposed to be the supermen.
Hinduism is the gospel of the superman and it teaches that what is right for the superman is the only thing which is called morally right and morally good.


And goes on to suggest that there's a parallel between this and Nietzsche's philosophy.
Is there any parallel to this philosophy? I hate to suggest it. But it is so obvious. The parallel to this philosophy of Hinduism is to be found in Nietzsche.


Nevertheless, Ambedkar draws a contrast between them:
Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was a hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose noscript to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.


It didn't help that Nietzsche himself praised Manu on a few occasions. Indeed, Ambedkar quotes from the Antichrist (§56) to demonstrate that Nietzsche's philosophy was indeed similar to Manuwād.

However, it must be kept in mind that the Antichrist, as the noscript suggests, is – primarily an attack on Christianity. Nietzsche's "praise" for Manu's laws should be seen within this context; it should not be supposed that Nietzsche was in favor of Manuwād; he was only using this rhetoric to attack Christianity.

One has to recognize that Nietzsche had a contempt for priests, not only Christian priests… but priests of all kinds; and that, therefore, Brahmins were no exception.
Nietzsche writes in GoM (I. §7):
As is well known, the priests are the most evil enemies — but why? Because they are the most impotent. It is because of their impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions, to the most spiritual and poisonous kind of hatred. The truly great haters in world history have always been priests; likewise the most ingenious haters: other kinds of spirit hardly come into consideration when compared with the spirit of priestly vengefulness.
But lest it be mistaken, say, that Nietzsche was only referring to Christian priests, it's clear from the previous section (GoM, I. §6) that Brahmins were no exception (and as a matter of fact, that denoscription from §7 applies most aptly to the Brahmins, more than to any other priestly classes):
There is from the first something unhealthy in such priestly aristocracies and in the habits ruling in them which turn them away from action and alternate between brooding and emotional explosions, habits which seem to have as their almost invariable consequence that intestinal morbidity and neurasthenia which has afflicted priests at all times; but as to that which they themselves devised as a remedy for this morbidity — must one not assert that it has ultimately proved itself a hundred times more dangerous in its effects than the sickness it was supposed to cure? Mankind itself is still ill with the effects of this priestly naïveté in medicine! Think, for example, of certain forms of diet (abstinence from meat), of fasting, of sexual continence, of flight “into the wilderness” (the Weir Mitchell isolation cure — without, to be sure, the subsequent fattening and overfeeding which constitute the most effective remedy for the hysteria induced by the ascetic ideal): add to these the entire antisensualistic metaphysic of the priests that makes men indolent and overrefined, their autohypnosis in the manner of fakirs and Brahmins — Brahma used in the shape of a glass knob and a fixed idea — and finally the only-too-comprehensible satiety with all this, together with the radical cure for it, nothingness (or God — the desire for a unio mystica with God is the desire of the Buddhist for nothingness, Nirvana — and no more!). For with the priests everything becomes more dangerous, not only cures and remedies, but also arrogance, revenge, acuteness, profligacy, love, lust to rule, virtue, disease…


And from the WtP (§143):
A lot is said today about the Semitic spirit of the New Testament: but what is called Semitic is merely priestly — and in the racially purest Aryan law-book, in Manu, this kind of ’Semitism,’ i.e., the spirit of the priest, is worse than anywhere else.


The immediately preceding couple of sections from WtP (§§136–142) are also highly critical of Manusmriti.

And when Nietzsche had taken up this topic in TotI (§7.3), he critically refers to how Brahmanism makes use of the same kind of morality of taming that he associates with Christian slave morality; and, speaking of the oppressive rules ("protective measures") that brahmins enforced on dalits in order to keep themselves in power... Nietzsche says:
Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian morality.


A careful and critical analysis would demonstrate that there's no actual meaningful similarity between Manuwād and Nietzsche's philosophy. Yes, indeed... if anything, they're utterly incompatible!
Brahmanism, being the fascist ideology that it is, is the worst manifestation of ressentiment; it is, in fact, slave morality masquerading as master morality... — one only has to observe its modern form, Hindutva, to confirm that, and one would have no doubt left regarding this.
2. It is a gross exaggeration to say that Nietzsche's philosophy was inspired from Manusmriti. Manusmriti's influence on Nietzsche was not much, definitely not central... his remarks on it are largely seen only in his last few works, and even there it was not at all central to his work.

As mentioned earlier, Nietzsche was actually critical of Manusmriti and Brahmanism, and even when he spoke positively of it, it was only rhetoric to attack Christianity in that particular context; and, moreover, the edition of Manusmriti he had read was a very unreliable one, so it seemed better to him than it actually was.

So that's an important aspect to be noted. The translation of Manusmriti that he relied on was very unreliable; it was by a chauvinist who sought to present Brahmanism as something great, something in which all sort of knowledge could be found, etc... so there was a lot of whitewashing and misrepresentation. That edition of Manusmriti made it seem much better than it actually was (e.g., about treatment of women etc). For example, Nietzsche criticized Christianity by comparing the misogyny in it to the treatment of women in the edition of Manusmriti he had, but its presentation on this subject was very inaccurate... so if he instead read a more authentic translation, he likely would have been much more critical of Manusmriti, to say the least.

Also, just as Nietzsche's primary aim in Antichrist was to attack Christianity, and so used various means and rhetorics to that end, including "praising" Manusmriti vis-à-vis the Bible... so Ambedkar's aim in these texts was (quite rightly) to attack Hinduism and therefore used various means to that end, including invoking Nietzsche's philosophy and using the then-prevalent interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy as Nazi philosophy.
And Ambedkar was justified in doing that; after all, these texts were written sometime during the 1940's-50's and a more critical analysis and understanding of Nietzsche was not mainstream then.

But, to reiterate, a critical analysis would show that there's no similarity between Brahmanism and Nietzsche's philosophy; thay, if anything, they're mutually incompatible — antagonistic even!

The following discussion adds further to this, refuting especially the reactionary, imperialist interpretations of Nietzsche; and, further, providing some context for Nietzsche's engagement with the Manusmriti... along with some relevant scholarly references: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#:~:text=handful%20of%20passages,views%20(A%2056)
🔥1
3. As for the link between Nietzsche's philosophy and Nazism, it must be abundantly clear from this post earlier that there's very little in common between Nietzsche and Nazism (or fascism in general), that he vehemently HATED the (proto-)Nazis of his time: the anti-Semites and (German) nationalists, including his own sister and brother-in-law. He was strongly opposed to nationalism (most of all, German nationalism) as well as to antisemitism. As he wrote in BGE (§251):
... it would perhaps be useful and fair to banish the anti-Semitic bawlers out of the country.


It's of course not feasible to claim him for liberalism either. Nietzsche's philosophy, like Stirner's, was especially critical of liberalism.

There are two main political interpretations of Nietzsche, apart from the apolitical one (which, in my opinion, is meaningless)...:
one is anarchism, another is aristocratism.
(Often the anti-politics interpretation is conflated with the apolitical interpretation. But as I pointed out here, it is in fact more compatible with anarchism.)

The aristocratic interpretation, however, can be reinterpreted in anarchist terms as favoring a libertarian aristocracy, or aristocracy of the spirit, as opposed to an imperialist aristocracy (see this)

Nietzsche was not a social theorist but a poet, a rebel and innovator. His aristocracy was neither of birth nor of purse; it was of the spirit. In that respect Nietzsche was an anarchist, and all true anarchists were aristocrats

Emma Goldman, Living My Life

It must be kept in mind that, although Nietzsche praised aristocratic values and denounced plebeian values, he was no aristocrat by birth, nor did he possess any political power or economic privilege – he often had to ask for monetary help from his friends. Likewise, he spoke highly of health and strength (not necessarily just physical strength), and hated weakness, but he himself suffered from serious health problems throughout his life.

All this should at the very least give some weight to the anarchist interpretation that his philosophy was championing certain (aristocratic etc) values, but not engaging in bigotry nor advocating an imperialistic program. After considering all of this, the anarchist interpretation of Nietzsche is the most meaningful and powerful, and the other interpretations are not so viable.

Let me mention in relation to this an incident from Emma Goldman's biography (Living My Life). It was actually a discussion about none other than Nietzsche; and, surprised by Goldman's enthusiasm over Nietzsche, (the art critic) James Huneker remarked to her:
“I did not know you were interested in anything outside of propaganda.”
Goldman's reply:
That is because you don’t know anything about anarchism, else you would understand that it embraces every phase of life and effort and that it undermines the old, outlived values.


Thus, when I say "anarchist interpretation" of Nietzsche, I don't mean just the political aspects, but also other aspects such as cultural, artistic, life-affirming values.

According to the anarchist interpretation, the Übermensch is an ideal for humans, an ideal that transcends both the master morality and the slave morality — a type ’human being’ who is neither a master nor a slave; a free spirit — a libertarian aristocrat, an anarchist.

The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer’s ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Übermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Übermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves.

Emma Goldman,
Anarchism and Other Essays (Preface)


*** references/abbreviations —
TotI : Twilight of the Idols
GoM : On the Genealogy of Morality
WtP : Will to Power
BGE : Beyond Good and Evil
👍1🔥1
Modest is even the thief in presence of sleep: he always stealeth softly through the night. Immodest, however, is the night-watchman; immodestly he carrieth his horn.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 2)
BACKWORLDSMEN.

Once on a time, Zarathustra also cast his fancy beyond man, like all backworldsmen. The work of a suffering and tortured God, did the world then seem to me.

The dream—and diction—of a God, did the world then seem to me; coloured vapours before the eyes of a divinely dissatisfied one.

Good and evil, and joy and woe, and I and thou—coloured vapours did they seem to me before creative eyes. The creator wished to look away from himself,—thereupon he created the world.

Intoxicating joy is it for the sufferer to look away from his suffering and forget himself. Intoxicating joy and self-forgetting, did the world once seem to me.

This world, the eternally imperfect, an eternal contradiction’s image and imperfect image—an intoxicating joy to its imperfect creator:—thus did the world once seem to me.

Thus, once on a time, did I also cast my fancy beyond man, like all backworldsmen. Beyond man, forsooth?

Ah, ye brethren, that God whom I created was human work and human madness, like all the Gods!

A man was he, and only a poor fragment of a man and ego. Out of mine own ashes and glow it came unto me, that phantom. And verily, it came not unto me from the beyond!

What happened, my brethren? I surpassed myself, the suffering one; I carried mine own ashes to the mountain; a brighter flame I contrived for myself. And lo! Thereupon the phantom withdrew from me!

To me the convalescent would it now be suffering and torment to believe in such phantoms: suffering would it now be to me, and humiliation. Thus speak I to backworldsmen.

Suffering was it, and impotence—that created all backworlds; and the short madness of happiness, which only the greatest sufferer experienceth.

Weariness, which seeketh to get to the ultimate with one leap, with a death-leap; a poor ignorant weariness, unwilling even to will any longer: that created all Gods and backworlds.

Believe me, my brethren! It was the body which despaired of the body—it groped with the fingers of the infatuated spirit at the ultimate walls.

Believe me, my brethren! It was the body which despaired of the earth—it heard the bowels of existence speaking unto it.

And then it sought to get through the ultimate walls with its head—and not with its head only—into “the other world.”

But that “other world” is well concealed from man, that dehumanised, inhuman world, which is a celestial naught; and the bowels of existence do not speak unto man, except as man.

Verily, it is difficult to prove all being, and hard to make it speak. Tell me, ye brethren, is not the strangest of all things best proved?

Yea, this ego, with its contradiction and perplexity, speaketh most uprightly of its being—this creating, willing, evaluing ego, which is the measure and value of things.

And this most upright existence, the ego—it speaketh of the body, and still implieth the body, even when it museth and raveth and fluttereth with broken wings.

Always more uprightly learneth it to speak, the ego; and the more it learneth, the more doth it find noscripts and honours for the body and the earth.

A new pride taught me mine ego, and that teach I unto men: no longer to thrust one’s head into the sand of celestial things, but to carry it freely, a terrestrial head, which giveth meaning to the earth!

A new will teach I unto men: to choose that path which man hath followed blindly, and to approve of it—and no longer to slink aside from it, like the sick and perishing!

The sick and perishing—it was they who despised the body and the earth, and invented the heavenly world, and the redeeming blood-drops; but even those sweet and sad poisons they borrowed from the body and the earth!

From their misery they sought escape, and the stars were too remote for them. Then they sighed: “O that there were heavenly paths by which to steal into another existence and into happiness!” Then they contrived for themselves their by-paths and bloody draughts!
Beyond the sphere of their body and this earth they now fancied themselves transported, these ungrateful ones. But to what did they owe the convulsion and rapture of their transport? To their body and this earth.

Gentle is Zarathustra to the sickly. Verily, he is not indignant at their modes of consolation and ingratitude. May they become convalescents and overcomers, and create higher bodies for themselves!

Neither is Zarathustra indignant at a convalescent who looketh tenderly on his delusions, and at midnight stealeth round the grave of his God; but sickness and a sick frame remain even in his tears.

Many sickly ones have there always been among those who muse, and languish for God; violently they hate the discerning ones, and the latest of virtues, which is uprightness.

Backward they always gaze toward dark ages: then, indeed, were delusion and faith something different. Raving of the reason was likeness to God, and doubt was sin.

Too well do I know those godlike ones: they insist on being believed in, and that doubt is sin. Too well, also, do I know what they themselves most believe in.

Verily, not in backworlds and redeeming blood-drops: but in the body do they also believe most; and their own body is for them the thing-in-itself.

But it is a sickly thing to them, and gladly would they get out of their skin. Therefore hearken they to the preachers of death, and themselves preach backworlds.

Hearken rather, my brethren, to the voice of the healthy body; it is a more upright and pure voice.

More uprightly and purely speaketh the healthy body, perfect and square-built; and it speaketh of the meaning of the earth.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 3)
THE DESPISERS OF THE BODY.

To the despisers of the body will I speak my word. I wish them neither to learn afresh, nor teach anew, but only to bid farewell to their own bodies,—and thus be dumb.

“Body am I, and soul”—so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: “Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.”

The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.

An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest “spirit”—a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.

“Ego,” sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou art unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not “ego,” but doeth it.

What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.

Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.

Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego’s ruler.

Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. “What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?” it saith to itself. “A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions.”

The Self saith unto the ego: “Feel pain!” And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: “Feel pleasure!” Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will?

The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will.

Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.

No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:—create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.

But it is now too late to do so:—so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.

To succumb—so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.

And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.

I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! Ye are no bridges for me to the Superman!—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 4)
🔥1
READING AND WRITING.

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.

It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.

He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.

Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.

Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace.

He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart.

In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak, but for that route thou must have long legs. Proverbs should be peaks, and those spoken to should be big and tall.

The atmosphere rare and pure, danger near and the spirit full of a joyful wickedness: thus are things well matched.

I want to have goblins about me, for I am courageous. The courage which scareth away ghosts, createth for itself goblins—it wanteth to laugh.

I no longer feel in common with you; the very cloud which I see beneath me, the blackness and heaviness at which I laugh—that is your thunder-cloud.

Ye look aloft when ye long for exaltation; and I look downward because I am exalted.

Who among you can at the same time laugh and be exalted?

He who climbeth on the highest mountains, laugheth at all tragic plays and tragic realities.

Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.

Ye tell me, “Life is hard to bear.” But for what purpose should ye have your pride in the morning and your resignation in the evening?

Life is hard to bear: but do not affect to be so delicate! We are all of us fine sumpter asses and assesses [Esel und Eselinnen].

What have we in common with the rose-bud, which trembleth because a drop of dew hath formed upon it?

It is true we love life; not because we are wont to live, but because we are wont to love.

There is always some madness in love. But there is always, also, some reason in madness.

And to me also, who appreciate life, the butterflies, and soap-bubbles, and whatever is like them amongst us, seem most to enjoy happiness.

To see these light, foolish, pretty, lively little sprites flit about—that moveth Zarathustra to tears and songs.

I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance.

And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall.

Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!

I learned to walk; since then have I let myself run. I learned to fly; since then I do not need pushing in order to move from a spot.

Now am I light, now do I fly; now do I see myself under myself. Now there danceth a God in me.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 7)
1👍1
"Describe the self-help, motivation industry (and a good amount of psychiatry etc) in two words..."

"Professional gaslighting"