Dionysus versus Apollo.

In accordance with the introduction of my title - Dionysian - I'd like to tease out the tension between Dionysus and Apollo, as Nietzsche utilizes the concepts throughout his thought. Initially, in The Birth of Tragedy, Dionysus is to represent the Primordial, chaotic oneness that underlies all the illusory order of Apollinian imposition. That is, Dionysus is pure, unfiltered chaos, and Apollo is individuation, order and purpose. Dionysus is truer than Apollo, but Apollo is necessary for life: man cannot sustain himself for long awash in Dionysian ecstasy; he may succumb to it occasionally in the intoxication of music or art, but he must always return to the world of appearance, the world of Apollo. Well and good. However, there is a decisive shift away from this strictly dialectical conception of Dionysus and Apollo in Nietzsche's thought, in favour of a united conception of the two Gods, a monism, so to speak. As I understand it, this is due (at least in large part) to Nietzsche's "discovery" of the Will to Power, the fundamental fact underlying existence -- the one drive. Nietzsche's conception of the Will to Power explodes his earlier dialectical understanding of nature, as a constant battle between Dionysus and Apollo. With the Will to Power comes the monistic characterization of nature that would permeate the rest of Nietzsche's work. Such a monism fuses Apollo and Dionysus; no longer are they purely contrary. What this means is that both Apollo and Dionysus are manifestations of the one will, the Will to Power.

Apollo becomes the will to art, to appearance; and Dionysus is the will to truth, insofar as "truth" is understood as innocent becoming, the world understood as will to power, and nothing besides. Neither is more pure, for both are manifestations of the one will. Both are interpretations of the one will, and both are necessary for the philosopher as artist. Still, I lean Dionysian. I am a musician, not a painter.

A brilliant mind is not content to harbor two opposing views in his mind. He must harmonize them; bring them together under one coherent world-model.

In this, Nietzsche, as well, exposes his masculine mind.
He had to create what was missing and that was the singularity.

As I understand it the metaphors of Apollo and Dionysus already participated in an elegant model.

One (Dionysus) represented the status quo, nature, growing entropy or what is known as chaos; the other (Apollo) represented a rejection, resistance to this.
The drive towards order, towards power, is the true revolutionary drive, when change just happens naturally with no effort and no input by man.

That today the opposite has been taken to be true, and dissolving all types, categories, in the name of "progress" is really a capitulation to the status quo and a conservative drive...a feminine one, can be explained as a result of feminization and our current monistic worship of nihilistic ideals, such as emptiness or paradise, utopia, which signify the end of all existing.

Think of it this way:

Both the feminine and the masculine have nihilistic tendencies.

The first directs itself towards surrendering to what is, to change, to increasing entropy, with an ultimate goal of reaching emptiness....the total void which underlies existence, making everything we perceive an illusion.
The world is dissolved as a fake; and instead of an ever-present /god, we have an ever-present emptiness - the absolute Nothing.
This is the progressive, liberal tendency in politics.

The second directs itself towards filling in the absence with itself. It is the God yet to be.
It strives for order, power, a return to an earlier state of less entropy, dreaming of an absolute return to the past, when all was ONE.
This is why the monistic god is always male and the right always believes in Him.
This, today, is considered "conservative" when in fact it is revolutionary as it sets itself up against the norm and strives to correct it, to arrest change, to end in a final Order.

Balance....The Hellenes believes in balance.
How does one achieve it, given the two binary tendencies?

Apollo must subdue Dionysus; he must control his brother.
Not deny him, forget him, dismiss him...but control him.

This is the masculine dominating the feminine.

Tend towards the Dionysian myself in that I'm not sure there is anything that much at stake in knowing "the truth" that one couldn't afford to engage in a kind dionysian/neitzchien dance of the intellect.

I really don't care about "the truth" in the apollonian/classical sense as much as I do seeing what my mind can do given, first, that all we are guaranteed is point A to point B as a consciousness(or perceiving thing( and, secondly, the only imperative all this gives us, given Liebneiz's question of "why all this rather than nothing", is the praxis of Play.

Really don't care about the truth as much as understanding, and a pretty way of expressing it:

resonance and seduction.

Now this, of course, involves the risk of a shithead like Hitler who used seduction and resonance as well.


But I think we have to have a little more faith in ourselves than we do our ideological constructs. I think we need to put far more faith in our love of freedom than we do.

We, despite all our differences on the issue of freedom (satyr), still seek it. It is the one term we can all agree on while disagreeing what the definition of it actually is.

Why was Hitler a "shithead"?

Σατυρ wrote:

Why was Hitler a "shithead"?

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you're a bigger shithead than I gave you credit for.

You can only take this Hannible Lector pose so far, satyr, before you become useless (like the impotent psychotic that withdraws into a bubble that has an individual language with its individual systems of meaning) to the rest of the symbolic order of the people you are interacting with right now.

The problem for me, satyr, with you (despite your obvious intellect), is that you fall into the naturalistic fallacy of assuming that because man, in his "natural" state, is brutal, the only natural way to act is like a brutal ashhole towards others.

Now, on one hand, you would be right. As Pinker points out in numerous anthropological studies, the murder rate among indigenous tribes, per capita, are higher than the civilized as a whole. In other words, the notion of the "Noble Savage" is a myth. But this is a double-edge sword: it also tells us that civilized people tend to kill less of ourselves. And when it comes to natural impulses, self preservation is perhaps highest among them. It requires that we be polite to one another in the hopes that the other will be polite to us.

The problem lies in the definition of what constitutes natural. Now, of course, natural to you has shown itself as being the right to be an asshole. But given the fact that you cannot establish any clear line between between the natural and everything that has evolved from it, how do you establish a difference between being an asshole and being polite? How do you establish that being polite is not just as natural as being an asshole?

o___0

And that's a sensical reaction.

d63tark wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

Why was Hitler a "shithead"?

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you're a bigger shithead than I gave you credit for.

I'll take this as a"I don't know", but my mommy told me so".

d63tark wrote:

You can only take this Hannible Lector pose so far, satyr, before you become useless (like the impotent psychotic) to the rest of the symbolic order of the people you are interacting with right now.

If you understood the Hannibal caricature better, you wouldn't be so hasty with your little barks.

But you already show your colors, no?

Poison IV wrote:

o___0

And that's a sensical reaction.

Always a pleasure looking at you, sweetheart.

Poison IV wrote:

o___0

And that's a sensical reaction.

And poison IV:

I think what I pointed out for Satyr

Stands for you as well.

Ouch!!!

Yeah.

Burn bigtime.

He even sexually degraded me.

I guess the idea of treating others as they deserve and beg to be treated, escapes the poor soul.

I would be polite to an ox, if it didn't slobber all over me or kick me, then I punch it on the sides.

The fact (which almost has a kind 1+1=2 fact status) that you are..... well, Wow!

doesn't change that fact that you are using that power act like you are establishing some kind of absolute truth.

For instance, the notion that morality is for losers.

What are you trying to say with that?

That it's just a bunch of people who weren't born with the same genetic privelege as you are trying to take something from you that they don't deserve. They work, consume, in order to make your daddy rich, and the daddy that had the money to get the beautiful genetic makeup that made you what you are is somehow picked on, by the losers?

Are you ok in the head?

d63tark wrote:

The fact (which almost has a kind 1+1=2 fact status) that you are..... well, Wow!

doesn't change that fact that you are using that power act like you are establishing some kind of absolute truth.

No, moron, I am establishing a precedent.
nothing absolute about it.
Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior...once a turd, always a turd.
You can grow, but how much can a piece of shit grow?

d63tark wrote:

For instance, the notion that morality is for losers.

No, turd, YOUR morality is for losers.

There is no such thing as an amoral individual...even amorality is a moral stance.

d63tark wrote:

What are you trying to say with that?

Ummmm,t hat you are retarded?

I'll give you a strike just for being dumb.

d63tark wrote:

That it's just a bunch of people who weren't born with the same genetic privelege as you are trying to take something from you that they don't deserve. They work, consume, in order to make your daddy rich, and the daddy that had the money to get the beautiful genetic makeup that made you what you are is somehow picked on, by the losers?

I don't care about your slavishness, girl.


We all exploit one another, though some pretend not to.

Goth Chicks Don't Smile,

Sweetheart:

(and for good reason

(They're too caught up in a constant state of demand to find out what it is they actually desire.

Is this code?

Is he speaking in code?

It's a she.

Anyway:

Luv ya man!




Gotta go... .. . .. . . .

Me too, babe.

kisses
xo

Furthermore, I would argue that the only reason this board exists is because there are losers in the world.

Which makes your participation all the more valuable.

I would suggest you at least make an effort to stay on-topic.

Try something like this:

"Dionysus told me, in confidence, that Satyr is a fag".
or
"Apollo is the god for losers"....you know something that pretends to be interested in the subject matter...or you can start a thread about how we are all losers.

Otherwise another strike will be issued.

Apollo and Dionysus are boring gods.

I'm the laughing trickster in the background.

I am the great antagonizer.

I'm a agent of discord.

It seems I've missed a bit of a digression here...
Regardless:

Quote :

A brilliant mind is not content to harbor two opposing views in his mind. He must harmonize them; bring them together under one coherent world-model.

This is, I believe, the fundamental key to Nietzsche's thought of the will to power. Nietzsche's philosophy is best understood as a will to one coherent world-model, which, given his psychological insights, manifests itself as a will to uncover the basic drive of the world. This basic drive is, of course, for power. I believe Nietzsche to have discovered such a drive in humans, predominantly, understanding that they do not will to survive, but rather will higher and will for more, often at risk of death -- which might be best understood in conjunction with Freud's death drive. He extrapolated such a drive and experimented by positing it as the fundamental drive behind the world itself. The result of this experiment is quite clear:

Quote :

And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!

[The Will to Power, 1067].

Quote :

Apollo and Dionysus are boring gods.

I'm the laughing trickster in the background.

I am the great antagonizer.

I'm a agent of discord.

How ironic.

Ironic how my yuppy pal?

If you study a variety of pagan religions all across the world the trickster element is a predominant archetype. It is one I can definately relate to.

The Greek Apollo or Dionysus are a bit too civilized for my liking.

I'm more of a barbarian.

Despite my like of Nietzsche on some fronts I'm not much of a fan of his reliance on Greek mythology or symbolic aphorisms in his writings. It over complicates simple issues where they become lost in literary form.

I rather prefer the plain approach to writing. Call it literary realism if you like. It's not that I don't like symbolic or literary narratives and analogies but there is such a thing as over doing it which can confuse the observing reader.

Quote :

Satyr: Balance....The Hellenes believes in balance.
How does one achieve it, given the two binary tendencies?

Everything balances themselves left unintervened.

The moment you try to intervene is when balance becomes lost.

Do nothing I say. Let nature sort it out on it's own.

The moment human beings try to intervene in nature, existence, or the universe around them is the moment when balance becomes lost.

It is because of that constant intervention why there exists great unbalance today and the more intervention enacted or created only all the more worse such unbalances become not to mention devestating.

It is human naivety and hubris that leads human beings to rationalize that they themselves can dictate nature or the universe around them.

In the end only devestation can come from it.

For me chaos is not to be shunned, contained, or even attempted to be destroyed as I view it with respect because it is the great balancer of all things.

It is that primordial chaos and the current one of our own generation that I seek to understand or have knowledge of.

d63tark wrote:

You can only take this Hannible Lector pose so far, satyr, before you become useless (like the impotent psychotic that withdraws into a bubble that has an individual language with its individual systems of meaning) to the rest of the symbolic order of the people you are interacting with right now.

The problem for me, satyr, with you (despite your obvious intellect), is that you fall into the naturalistic fallacy of assuming that because man, in his "natural" state, is brutal, the only natural way to act is like a brutal ashhole towards others.

Now, on one hand, you would be right. As Pinker points out in numerous anthropological studies, the murder rate among indigenous tribes, per capita, are higher than the civilized as a whole. In other words, the notion of the "Noble Savage" is a myth. But this is a double-edge sword: it also tells us that civilized people tend to kill less of ourselves. And when it comes to natural impulses, self preservation is perhaps highest among them. It requires that we be polite to one another in the hopes that the other will be polite to us.

The problem lies in the definition of what constitutes natural. Now, of course, natural to you has shown itself as being the right to be an asshole. But given the fact that you cannot establish any clear line between between the natural and everything that has evolved from it, how do you establish a difference between being an asshole and being polite? How do you establish that being polite is not just as natural as being an asshole?

Quote :

to the rest of the symbolic order of the people you are interacting with right now.

Symbolic order reduced becomes nothing but religion and wild superstitions.

Quote :

is that you fall into the naturalistic fallacy of assuming that because man, in his "natural" state, is brutal, the only natural way to act is like a brutal ashhole towards others.

Not just brutal but also selfish, egotistical, hedonistic, materialistic, and power driven.

The appetite for all is one which is unsatiable filled with gluttony.

Quote :

As Pinker points out in numerous anthropological studies, the murder rate among indigenous tribes, per capita, are higher than the civilized as a whole. In other words, the notion of the "Noble Savage" is a myth.

A myth that it may be however I would still argue ancient human beings were by far more independent than what we are today somthing of a view I would argue behind.

I would also say that individualism existed more frequently in ancient times compared to the massive zombie social conformity structure that we have in modern socieities.

In the procession of civilization what we see is human beings constantly containing themselves in their own cages which then overtime becomes artifact.

Today's modern human populance is no more independent or "freer" than their ancient ancestors although we try so desperately to put up the facade that we are.

Quote :

But this is a double-edge sword: it also tells us that civilized people tend to kill less of ourselves. And when it comes to natural impulses, self preservation is perhaps highest among them. It requires that we be polite to one another in the hopes that the other will be polite to us.

Which is a bullshit lie put all the human wars waged in the name of civilization the last twenty five hundred years.

Need I remind you of the last two world wars?

If anything modern living is the zenith of violent expression.

Quote :

And when it comes to natural impulses, self preservation is perhaps highest among them.

Yes it is which is why human beings have no problems enslaving each other.

Afterall better it be somebody else enslaved instead of you.

Quote :

It requires that we be polite to one another in the hopes that the other will be polite to us.

Which is a fairy tale as any dead martyr will tell you.

Quote :

The problem lies in the definition of what constitutes natural.

Everything is natural.

Quote :

Now, of course, natural to you has shown itself as being the right to be an asshole. But given the fact that you cannot establish any clear line between between the natural and everything that has evolved from it, how do you establish a difference between being an asshole and being polite? How do you establish that being polite is not just as natural as being an asshole?

Everybody is convincly polite especially when they want something.

TheJoker wrote:

Not just brutal but selfish, egotistical, selfish, hedonistic, materialistic, and power driven.

Would humans be so unlike most social mammals? Most exhibit all sorts of relationship prioritizations not listed here. The above sounds like a combination of a sociopath and someone with Aspberger's Syndrome.

Are you assuming that all empathy is really guilt?