[WageSlavery] Change morality ? Where F. Nietzsche is on the Spiral Dynamic ?

[Strikr]

Sound a lot with what leo teach us.. he is clearly NOT ORANGE, nor red, nor green, probably a "10% red 90% yellow" if that's possible.

 

Slave morality

Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality. Unlike master morality, which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as "good".

Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength, but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:[4] The good is what is most useful for the whole community, not just the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number, compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are "evil", as are the qualities the weak originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity"[5]—the political manifestation of slave morality because of its obsession with freedom and equality.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

 

what do you think of reading F.Nietzshe ?

 

[Leo Gura]

@Strikr It's a stupid notion. Nietzche just misunderstood spirituality.

What he blasts as "slave morality" is just surrender, humility, love, peace, and enlightenment.

 Nietzche's entire understanding of the origins of religion are wrong. Humility was not forced on anyone. Humility is the end result of ego loss.

Nietzche's ego demonized it.

I would put him at Orange. He hated Blue. A classic Orange atheist nihilist knee-jerk reaction to Blue.

[Strikr]

thanks for this review @Leo Gura , I think you're right, do you recommand some lecture to get out of my negative orange part ?

I think he is the deepest reflection of my dark side, can I convince it to surrender ? with the intellectual part ? with books ? more meditation ? I think my ego is avoiding any attempt to meditate very very very hard.

Maybe different than you I've been a pure ego being as long as I remember

what was your own path that convince you to really reflect that orange/green part is still limiting ? is it only DMT ? I can't put my hand on that for probably a while, and I m not willing to do so, my ego doesn't want it. LSD realisation still burning my ego flesh, he is trying to take me back very hard to old ways.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Strikr

[Oeaohoo]

I get the sense that @Leo Gura hasn't actually read any Nietzsche first-hand, though I could be wrong...  Some thoughts:

On 13/09/2018 at 8:31 PM, Leo Gura said:

What he blasts as "slave morality" is just surrender, humility, love, peace, and enlightenment.

Nietzsche wasn't some ultra-regressive neo-aristocrat - he "blasts" slave morality disproportionality because society at his time of writing was so possessed by it.

It's fair to say that Nietzsche misses the boat on genuine spirituality & enlightenment, to his detriment, but there's far more to slave morality than just peace and love - namely, in a word, ressentiment. See Osho's discussion of Nietzsche for more on this.

On 13/09/2018 at 8:31 PM, Leo Gura said:

A classic Orange atheist nihilist knee-jerk reaction to Blue.

It was precisely the life-negating nihilism of Christianity (and ascetic modes of being in general) that he was criticising!

Quote

"This man of the future, who in this wise will redeem us from the old ideal, as he will from the idea's necessary corollary of great nausea, will to nothingness, and Nihilism; this tocsin of noon and of the great verdict, which renders the will again free, who gives back to the world its goal and to man his hope, this Antichrist and Antinihilist, this conqueror of God and of Nothingness - he must one day come." - F. Nietzsche, GM (inciting Zarathustra).

The trouble with just lumping Nietzsche in as another "classic Orange knee-jerk reaction to Blue' is that it wasn't the Blue aspects of religion (arbitrary dogma, ideology, blind faith, moral absolutism, etc.) that he was particularly concerned with (at least as regards his genealogy of morality and the slave-master dichotomy). It was the particular doctrinal approach to morality which puts all the emphasis on not-doing and what shouldn't be done (and thus defines good in terms of evil rather than bad in terms of good, as was the aristocratic way).

In fact, when we was concerned with dogma, he was just as concerned with rational materialist dogma as religious dogma!

Quote

"Supposing truth to be a woman - what? is the suspicion not well founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women? ... Certainly she has not let herself be won - and today every kind of dogmatism stands sad and discouraged. If it continues to stand at all!" - F. Nietzsche, BGE (preface).

"As for materialistic atomism, it is one of the best-refuted things there are" - ", BGE.

"Physics too is only an interpretation and arrangement of the world (according to our requirements, if I may say so!) and not an explanation of the world." - ", ".

"'Nature's conformity to law' of which you physicists speak so proudly ... exists only thanks to your interpretation and bad 'philology'" - ", ".

"One should use ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication." - ", ".

"Against positivism, which halts at phenomena - "there are only facts" - I would say: no, facts is precisely what there are not, only interpretations!" - ", WP.

What Nietzsche was a knee-jerk reaction too is the one-sidedness of Platonism and Christianity, which - rather than spiritualising the material world too - made the material world something corrupt, evil and to-be-escaped, and thus set up the duality between mind and body which has subsequently plagued the philosophical tradition! (Not a coincidence, Nietzsche would add.)

The most fundamental problem Nietzsche had with such life-denying philosophies was that his ultimate goal was a total affirmation of life!

Quote

"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati*: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.” 

*Love of fate.

As far as locating Nietzsche on the spiral goes, I would definitely put him at Yellow. I agree with you that he has a red shadow, and I would say that he also has an orange shadow, but I think he knew that (though he obviously wouldn't frame it in such terms). That being said, I'm not sure that the Spiral Dynamics model is the best lens to view someone as idiosyncratic as Nietzsche through.

[Leo Gura]

@Oeaohoo You make some good points.

But then again, many Orange atheist types will say the same thing today: puritanical Christianity is bad because it is too uptight, too serious, too life denying, too sexually repressive, too theocratic.

Orange people tend to skew towards libertarianism and hedonism. Which is the pendullum swing from extreme repression to "the world is my oyster and all self-denial is bad".

Watch some videos from the Amazing Atheist on YT. He criticisizes religion on these kind of Neitzchian grounds and he's very Orange.

It feels like Neitzche's critique of Christianity is what a modern person's critique of Quakers would be: they are too life-denying, basically kill-joys. They need to loosen up and have a little fun.

What is lost on the Orange person, and Neitzche, is WHY ascetic practices are done. It is not life-denying, it is really just the opposite. The ascetic is the one who becomes most alive. But of course asceticism must be done properly, not as stage Blue religious ritual, which is just an aping of real asceticism.

Neitzsche is basically critisizing all of the egoic corruption within Christianity. But he ended throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What Neiztche really missed is what an ascetic like Sadhguru did. He is the opposite of life-denying.

It is nice to see that Neitzche saw through the absurdity of positivism and atomism. In his day those materialist views had not yet taken dominance like today. Idealism was still somewhat alive. Today it is basically dead in the sciences.

[Joseph Maynor]

Stage Orange.  Same with Ayn Rand.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Oeaohoo]

@Leo Gura You make a mistake when you conflate life-denying with uptight and serious, and similarly when you imply that the inverse of life-denying is hedonistic. That’s not at all what Nietzsche is about.

If you have the time/interest, this short paper does a great job of summarising Nietzsche’s thinking on this subject.

Also - @Joseph Maynor - Nietzsche and Ayn Rand have basically nothing in common - not even according to Ayn Rand...

[Leo Gura]

@Oeaohoo Trying to make sense of the particular delusions of old dead Western philosophers is largely a waste of time. That is the game of academic philosophy, which might win a battle here or there on technical points, but always loses the war.

Every major Western philosopher basically made a few good points along with a bunch of nonsense. And now we have to waste thousands of hours sorting the few tidbits of wisdom from the overall pile of delusion.

The fact is Neitzche did not have a good understanding the origins of religion. He was reacting against corruption within religion. Which is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Is Neitzche a paragon of integral thinking? Is reading him going to teach you how to be a integral thinker? Your time would be better spent reading some Ken Wilber. That's what real Yellow looks like.

After I realized God, my understanding of and compassion for Christianity shot through the roof. Even though there's so much corruption and stupidity within it. It's like watching a little child giving his best but just failing over and over again. The harder he tries, the harder he fails. It's sad really.

The Christians know not what they preach. The devil sunk his fangs into them real good.

[d0ornokey]

@Leo Gura how do you avoid the philosopher's delusions? when reading socrates, aristotle etc. how do i know which parts of their stuff is legit?

[Leo Gura]

@d0ornokey It's very challenging. Western philosophers are masters at weaving together genius and bullshit.

Best to stick to modern nonduality teachers for the most of you. So you don't waste your time.

The books on my book list are what you should be focused on reading and mastering. You'll notice, I don't put a lot of philosophy books on there.