I have been writing up this beastly essay lately, I have been reading Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality again (its DAMN good) and have had some ideas flare up in me... here is a jist of them. Take a gander if you would like, I would appreciate any input, at least inasmuch as I appear at all intelligible (as I might turn it in into a prof for class) - I wonder if I get stuck in ruts of speculation too often... But then again this is pretty big soooo....
Have a nice day
Our psychological sensitivity to what we will eventually call and consider the meat of our declarations of our sense of morality (which are in our rigid modern mind juxtaposed to the amoral antitheses of them) could rightfully be considered that which is the essence of humanity; its distinguishing factor, its development of mores set us apart and lead to our polished sense for morality. Yes, but when we meditate about what preceded our supposedly moral mentality we have rightfully gone about this train of thought with a squinted eye of discernment (due in part because they are often seen as too ‘sentimental’ for reality - finding that we can barely shed our modern mentality). But I have given this discernment a second look, glaring back at it thinking; is it not possible that historically the species of primal humanoids/humans were perhaps indeed beings that had an uncanny nature-endowed disposition towards what we eventually dress up as moral – the advent of greater society (fixed) merely expounded on a human trait. Just how much were we transformed by our “cages” or just how much can we suppose we were already in a bit of a cage as humanity became a species – even before a conquering force descended on us? How can we decipher Nietzsche’s story in regards to a conquering force tyrannizing weaker families/tribes; a genealogy of morality in his sense becomes synonymous with a genealogy of the state, no? It seems now, to which direction should we go, yes, or can we even go? Oh how hard it is to find any of this out given the fluidity of mores (not to mention the eventual development of “axiomatic” morals overlap all too insidiously with custom) and our distance from here. The spirit of philosophical anthropology is a “tortured” spirit – at least in regards to this very key aspect of the human: our apparent receptivity/sensitivity to customs and wisdom that preceded this screaming infant! It seems to me that the being, the personality, or disposition that defined the emergence of the species of humans was a being who possessed the ability to feel out itself with sometimes nasty (but virtuous (empowering)) side-effects. It’s own shocking affirmation of bodily-ness - which is to say it is possessed by itself with a fearfulness towards forces of the other (the outside affects assaulting us) – is the factory out of which we became most cunning collaborators; and it almost seems that we indeed needed more eyes than two to exceed/excel like this (that is human sociality) but with this complexity comes hand in hand a complexity of mores – a sense of respect bred into this legacy of DNA. How? Was there a sort of luxury (and I wonder if it is an infantile luxury, literally) preceding this train of thought, or am I being too modern – too engaged with sentimentality? Should we deduce morality with less wordy dress up and more brutality? Bear with me.
One would assume yes alpha male structuring in early man would have been logical enough, though I wonder if the unique fitness of man was one in which the “muscle memory” of brute-ness was neglected (to a point) to even become the dominator of nature! And so much of our concept of alpha male entails that. Ha! Neglected by whom? For whom? For us? What is “us” to an ego, especially the alpha ego!? Hmmm, a recollection of the force of the ego into the darkness it is founded on, something funky in the DNA allowed it to get a little emphatic? A sort of brilliant side step into collectivity? I fear some stagnation here.
So, how could we have the time to even linger on ourselves if we were never pleased with our receptivity of the force of the us surrounding our given place within a group, even if one could imagine this outlook from the alpha perspective? Ha! Was the human alpha male a guise? Would not the primal traits and preoccupations of an alpha male crumble under the inquisitive eyes of a new generation endowed with the so called fruits of the group’s labor - that is an eye for manipulation? Was there a force of the alpha female working here too, maybe something oddly sneaky (though delightful) with the force of her maternity as we evolved? Man as, properly, one becoming more and more stuck in the supposed innocence of infantile nature? Our new conception of human leadership (in the properly archaic necessity of scarcity) is one of an “enlightened” (in a very pure sense of the term, en-lightened) alpha male – and in order to even find a human type I think we find this phenomenon. This puzzle of an intellect saying what is what could be considered one that comes to realizes the utility of comradeship with new comers that vent and discharge their powers via primal science, so thus in this light one can see how he might have dissolved into the ranks so very early on that it is almost impossible to figure it out how. So isn’t there a big difference between the mentality of a human alpha male and a wolf alpha male, wouldn’t we say so!? These are bothersome and all too confusing hypotheses… am I being too sentimental when I try to oppose (softly) the sensation of morality being something only resulting from bad conscious (bad conscious entails a little tyranny)? Or was that ever the point? That is to say, its foundation was actually attended to and constructed for quite sometime before the subduing of the overflown masses into greater society by something like the blond beast. I find that something was developed with some significance before this “tyranny.” I detect some problems of semantics and position interpretation within me, now at least, and I can’t figure out exactly where.
But was not the tyrant for early man primarily nature!? We sort of ironed out and subdued our bodily tendencies to preoccupy oneself with politics, at least politics in the cruder sense. Funny how the spill over of modern man has gone, in a sense, full circle with that! I will not disagree that I am looking far back into archaic man, groups that couldn’t support many comrades, groups that are pre-agriculture, nomadic hunters… fusion of primate security with a little taste for the audacity of a big game hunting beast. This was our first movement, our first force for speciation… I think. Ok was our emergence in the wake of a legacy of harsh power grabs? Sure but what can we say about that? Well then I just wonder, in precision, we are not mere chimps today, yes? There is something being fused with the human, ah what a tedious thought. It seems that the selfishness of the ego was softened up to an ability to mirror others actions in a way that seemed so new and odd that we felt that we must regard it as the dissolving of crass egotistical actions, and thus get a little lawful – moral - though one at bottom sees the error in that cheeky absolving; but surely we have found new avenues for special behavior. So, what begat any commune was a profound alienation, yes, but within predatory communities we see something more than the force of speciation in more solitary predators. Cooperation has its, even if it came slowly (harshly), unique advantages. And one could assume that a sliver of this force in disposition occurs in the more brainless herd animal, as it does, with more power, in the “tuned in” predatory herd animal. Our “herdiness” runs deep within, its affirmation barely emerging out of the shadows of its subconscious domain. The human shows the value of receptivity to sensation in the individual even if it runs the risk of nausea, though it properly vents outward via our almost schizophrenic inclinations in communication. Indeed - how grandiose we all became to ourselves when we sort of saw with more eyes! We are an eager spirit indeed, just think about how quickly the baby is scanning for them! Making them up even! Faces are almost everywhere for it. Archaically we all just used the language of submission you say? Submission is a force found out by even lower animals, and it often works out well enough but I think something more can be said for the human; thus the problem of our genesis of slowing down our reactions and thus formation of mores/memes.
Bear with me… when we look at say, a great shark, we see a being grown so well into it’s surrounding that its bodily form is like a reciprocal relationship of the fluid dynamics of its oceanic plight; mix in a little chancy/daring intentionality within environment and you see how intertwined the animate body becomes. It is almost as if the moment that passes by affords the “will to power” with an endowment, randomized but apparently always at the willing – given the right chemistry - the body will lap up the power available in a sort of “mental” flailing about (looks like that from here, though I find the words odd) – and “the being” is thus harnessed as substantiality via a “magic” we can’t begin to comprehend or even, perhaps should want to. Mere harnessed cellular ATP eh? Huh? So given the given instantiation of DNA we see how the forces of its supposed disposition dissolve into pure obscurity when we look for a seemingly unending genesis to what is made apparent right now. In this moment we behold it; though we are under a veil as to a so called true moment of genesis. I would say the essence of humanity is a sort of repose of this “flailing” - this desire to forge a cleft out of substance is at the bottom of us - but our force for power becomes internalized once again after the exertion of the ape in us! In a mental flailing (our virtue towards expansion) affirmed and exerted inasmuch as we learn an eye for early science the bodies beyond become realized more and more as instruments for our manipulation (even our kin!) towards power – with logical results in joy and sadness developing with further poles – in these oh so receptive ones we see how capillaries in the brain are more and more being fed with vigor and force. We say we remember so much (conscious or not) and observe so much – so then what have we to do with fangs anymore!? We’ve got something better here, but don’t let the delicateness of the hand and discerning eye deceive you! Oh but how much this has a bit of a bargain in it, no (for our mental health lately)!? In the early human we found power submerged and disguised, our clever eagerness suspended as ideal, and even to such a degree that we even found out that we can possess an impulse (a veritable more of our instinct) that can actually constitute our greatest enemy as we emerge as a contemplative social species. What a surprise! This was the enigma of the good human. But it is as if one could say now say, at this point in the development of man, usher in that blond beast – now things will really take off! And yes greater and greater overflow of this primal humanity has almost entailed a second repose (almost a reversal in cases) in the likeness of modern man! Thus our interesting terrestrial plight as of late - as in, of our scope of history.
--------------------
Jesus loves you.
Edited by andrewss (11/23/09 06:31 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
APE Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Feminized Cannabis Seeds
andrewss 
Icelander 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Anonymous
deff
lucid
Swami
silversoul7