On “Sensibility” (re-edited)
To read the work of a man still living in one’s own time without distrust: is it even possible?
Remind me again the difference between “is” and “become”?
… a real mastery and subtlety in waging war against one’s self, in other words, self-control, self-outwitting…
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.”
Man stands no chance against Woman, for in him is a capacity for mercy –
– and the befuddlement of too much judgement.
Writer’s 2017 Goals:
- To reckon myself, in spite of it all (or perhaps because of it all), the
greatestnoblest 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
Philosopher’s Wife :
Dear, the sink is full.
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?
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?
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 *
… 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…
- 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
Devil walks into bar. Orders drink. Asks Philosopher sitting next to him: “And what do you do?”