Words words words

Finally, through doubt, and the subsequent art and politics, we pass through war and revolution to witness the birth of the Romantic, the power of Government slowly beginning to be parlayed into the power of the private sector, and the creation of a new kind of world, where in response to Faust’s question, “So then, who are you?” Mephisto replies on behalf of the coming world of Industrialism, and the resulting Capitalism, in much the same way that all great vehicles for power historically have been echoed, “A part of the power that wills evil always but always works the good.” 

Yeah it's a run on sentence. I just don't feel like fixing it up right now.  It's the concluding paragraph to my second paper in a current class I'm enjoying. The next one I think I'm going to bring out some real new hitters, like Thomas Paine, and maybe even Franklin.  The Young America. 

"The childhood of a nation is not its age of innocence" - Duelos 

The coming paper will also focus on the importance of the way that history is interpreted and thought about; ergo how history is learned. It is important to sense the rhythm of things, for instance, Nietzsche wrote The Birth of Tragedy at the age of twenty-eight.  We must know this, so that today, we can gauge our nations pastimes by the predominate model of the twenty-eight year old in various contexts.  To see how we respond to similar situations is the best lesson we can thus far learn.  To try and gauge the future trends is one component only.  

As the years wear on, and I am not quite 'worn' yet...my deep appreciation for the gift of Nietzsche's work at a young age come to harvest.  The idea which surrounds him is far less than what his idea really was.  When one thinks of anyone joyful over Nietzsche's Gay Science is a thrusting out of all that is weak.  What they fail to mention, is that they have no idea what he means by his definition of weak.  Surely when considering someone (as would be the concluding argument) of a mental disability, how can we think of them being noble, and brave and strong? Yet they are often the most of us, and so too would Nietzsche's self-professed, "life affirming" philosophy make the most sense.  

There are, as with all things, areas to tease out.  That in a way would unravel his entire framework, however, as is the seduction and curse of our modern conversation, this is a reasonable claim and imposition to make upon the man.  To presume the death of God is to presume the death merely of a definition--that anyone would get sucked in to think differently of the work, is a commentary on their own personal framework for the sound made when us English speakers say, "God". 

The only way to know a God, or sometimes its the 'Om' that started it all...is to feel it in a way that has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with the person beneath the thinking, yet born from that thinking to be able to clear in space for, 'God'. 

That we argue about if one exists or not, is not a fault of those like Nietzsche, but those that Nietzsche was witnessing, and the foul depths to which some of it was taken enough to make the prolific thinker and writer to have to consider the Disparagers of the Body.  

It is the same way that Nazi's took him out of context; it's really a diluted version of that thinking which clouds any mystical understanding in Nietzsche's work.  I can make room for the critique that the man himself wouldn't appreciate the term, yet then again I could make a more solid room for the assumption that he wouldn't give a shit what we call it.  That he explains the impetus for forward movement as the 'Will to Power' is simply a philosophical leap made by his interpretation of the contextual evidence he was able to acknowledge in his time and space; as such, the reasoning we draw as the divine spark in ourselves, could be called a myriad of things--and often mis used as a 'love of money' or a general obsession with attainment.  

We can have the idea of gift.  That what is all, is gift, even if we are unaware of it.  The eventual argument back is always of child sex-trafficking, where is the 'gift of life' in that--and it seems the only fulfilling answer in that direction is that the act, by nature, robs the gift of life, and in doing so is deemed evil.  The question about what is accepted as life and what is not, is also born only a few hundred years ago, we were far less concerned with if we had slaves or not.  Freedom, as we think of it today, is still a freakishly new concept in the history of the human species. 

I am up far too late. 

We will review this tomorrow. 

Selah. 

The Circle of Life. Lion King. 1994. That's 18 years ago. 

Does not compute. 

computing. 

computing.