Remind me again the difference between “is” and “become”?
II.
… a real mastery and subtlety in waging war against one’s self, in other words, self-control, self-outwitting…
III.
Devil :
Looking at the sun on your face this morning reminds me of my favorite proverb: “a philosopher’s own generation wipes his every page with its collective ass.”
IV.
Man stands no chance against Woman, for in him is a capacity for mercy –
V.
– and the befuddlement of too much judgement.
VI.
Writer’s 2017 Goals:
To reckon myself, in spite of it all (or perhaps because of it all), the greatest noblest mind alive today *
To exclude, with ever increasing violence, the sensibilities of the rabble from my own internal conversation
To perfect the art of subtle maliciousness, such that I don’t even notice when it occurs
Resume in earnest that novel, the great one
*see notes below
VII.
Philosopher’s Wife :
Dear, the sink is full.
VIII.
To read the work of a man still living in one’s own time without distrust, which is to say, with at least a hint of respect: is it even possible?
IX.
The greatest test of any idea: how well does it survive Ecstasy’s repeated attempts to slay it by the work of some greater wonder?
The Rabble, Goya
X.
Initial Question/Working Thesis:
If what is “common” can be made “noble” by the refinement of language and taste, and through it, thought – why is it so rare as to almost seem impossible?
Conditions for Argument:
Make no reference to destiny, predetermination, or inborn “types”
Apply some other formula than: common = good ∴ common ≠ bad ∴ bad = uncommon (i.e. great)
Attempt to universalize any conclusion made herein beyond subjective experience (within reason, of course)
Allow only (1) reference for any of the following: culture, forefathers, peoples, or “hereditary gods”
Omit: “commonness as an inability to overcome one’s lower nature”; as well any equivocation between the common man and a beast or herd animal
Allow use of the term “decadence”?– fine, but indirectly; as insinuation only
When speaking of a man’s inability to develop a noble aesthetic, exclude terms: impotence, virility, fear, ease, and laziness (covered in previous work)
Discuss modern technology? fine, but not as central cause
* Additional challenge: make no mention of “the Greeks”, even obliquely
Outline of Intent:
Focus on “sensibility” and “taste” in relation personal aesthetics; aesthetics as the epistemological foundation for noble thinking and action
Divorce above terms from their widely-accepted subjective usage, i.e. from those that begin with trite valuations such as “I like”, “I prefer”, “this tastes good”, etc; instead, imbue them with a “willful” quality, i.e. “I bless”, “I bestow”, “I mean”, “I allow”
The word privilege springs to mind – good, but define as “the rights one claims”, primarily through internal maliciousness
Emphasize the spiritual/aesthetic potency of the word “claim”, particularly with regards to values, meaning, etc.
Introduce “Will” – but not as pronoun; seek to generalize without breaking Condition (1) above *
Working Conclusion:
… the noble sensibility is marked chiefly by the willful possession of the privilege to bless and bestow value on things beyond and outside one’s self…
Problems:
Conclusion reads too flaccidly – needs hardening
Potential “whys” and “hows” to conclusion lead too easily to external sources such as Nous, Logos, God, whomever
Attempt to overcome by contextualizing man as god (but not as an atheist would)
Emphasize the practical difficulty of working conclusion: i.e. only the rare few who are sufficiently willful, which is to say, psychologically malicious toward themselves but yet still endure can claim such right(s)
* greatest weakness of argument: gap must be spanned by a large leap of faith; seek to shorten with some sort of mytho-psychological explanation
About
Devil walks into bar. Orders drink. Asks Philosopher sitting next to him: “And what do you do?”