Walter Benjamin gave the name "auratic perception" to the aesthetic faculty through which civilization would recover a lost appreciation of mythRe-tying (re-legio) the ring of eternity to the rod/staff/scepter of power...
Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols" (The 4 Great Errors) (aka- Vaseline for the Camera Lens)
1) confusing cause and effect
2) false causality
3) imaginary causes
4) The error of free will
"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Is it wise to trust someone with a strong urge to punish? I think not. So I agree with Nietzsche here.
ReplyDeleteThe hilarity is that in saying "mistrust this one", you are asking the other to trust. See? It puts one in an impossible position, a very painful one.
I dont' know. I have some serious questions about this. It seems to me that it's a convenient way to disavow responsibility for bad behavior.
ReplyDelete1. confusing cause and effect
2. false causality
3. imaginary causes
This all seems lame. I know in some cases it's not, but it could be used to avoid ownership.
I think that the missing piece to the puzzle is that those people who actually HAVE power have no need to punish as no harm can come to them. What's one flea to a 100 lb. dog? (only mistrust - after all, SHE may lay eggs ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd those in whom the desire to "punish" is strong are usually those w/o power (ie - the weak) and who require protection... and incapable of granting mercy/ grace (as the granting may result in further harm to them).
Those w/o power are also likely to be w/o power because their "values" have prevented them from acquiring it (hence the need to "mistrust" them).
Genealogy of Morals #10
...It would not be impossible to imagine a society with a consciousness of its own power which allowed itself the most privileged luxury which it can have—letting its criminals go without punishment. “Why should I really bother about my parasites?” it could then say. “May they live and prosper; for that I am still sufficiently strong!” . . . Justice, which started with “Everything is capable of being paid for; everything must be paid off” ends at that point, by shutting its eyes and letting the person incapable of payment go free—it ends, as every good thing on earth ends, by doing away with itself. This self-negation of justice: we know what a beautiful name it calls itself—mercy. It goes without saying that mercy remains the privilege of the most powerful man, or even better, his beyond the law.
It's usually those who have been wronged or were incapable of defending themselves who demand "justice". The powerful actor simple "does" whatever he feels necessary w/o asking for an intercession from "the authorities" on his behalf. In Plato's "Laws", for example, the citizens are REQUIRE by law to avenge the murders of family members or people who would beat on people older than themselves. In many ways, the mafioso/godfather ethics apply.
ReplyDeleteOne does NOT, in Plato's Magnesia, hand over ALL "use of force" options to "legal authorities". And in certain circumstances, one is legally obligated to exercise physical force.
ReplyDeleteIn Athens, there was the tradition of placing a "herm" or "priapus" at the gate to a household. I t maked the place where the legal authority of the citizens/officials ended and the owner's began.
ReplyDeleteI think that the missing piece to the puzzle is that those people who actually HAVE power have no need to punish as no harm can come to them. What's one flea to a 100 lb. dog? (only mistrust - after all, SHE may lay eggs ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd those in whom the desire to "punish" is strong are usually those w/o power (ie - the weak) and who require protection... and incapable of granting mercy/ grace (as the granting may result in further harm to them).
Those w/o power are also likely to be w/o power because their "values" have prevented them from acquiring it (hence the need to "mistrust" them).
--------------
A problem arises then, when two parties mistrust each other, both seeing the other as "powerful", and themselves as "merciful". What a mess!
The best solution, in my opinion, is to trust and give the benefit of the doubt.
I was thinking of this last night. Why don't some people trust? I'm sure there are several reasons. I used to trust implicitly.
Here are the reasons I came up with.
1. The other person has committed a wrong, and cannot fathom the other doing "right". Projection.
2. Been injured/unable to protect oneself, now unable to risk injury again.
I relate to 2 a great deal, 1 somewhat, but I still have some faith. However, when someone doesn't trust me, I have to wonder why.
It is very frustrating, but something I have no control over. It does hurt, though.
Experience... and time... will tell. What laws move the other's soul? Learning them takes a great deal of time and experience so as to avoid the first 3 great Errors and confirm the 4th.
ReplyDeleteAnd in every human being these errors mix and are not likely constant. You can try and cut through the Gordian's knots and trust implicitly, but you are more likely to be disappointed with the result than otherwise.
And most people, myself include, are not strong and/or powerful enough to cope with that form of perpetual disappointment. Unconditional love... something not readily shared but amongst a few. Parents for their children... husbands and wives over the course of raising them...
What's the old Nuclear Treaty maxim?
ReplyDeleteTrust, but verify?
...or is it "mutually assured destruction."?
...or is it "mutually assured destruction."?
ReplyDelete---------
Oh dear me, I hope not.
We are all human, and need:
forgiveness
encouragement
love
It's simple, really.
And in every human being these errors mix and are not likely constant. You can try and cut through the Gordian's knots and trust implicitly, but you are more likely to be disappointed with the result than otherwise.
ReplyDelete-------------
Yes, of course there will be disappointment. But in trusting, I'm am not saying to the other...Now you must not disappoint me. I am saying to myself...Now I can handle whatever happens, because this person is human...all too human. ;-)
See? If I only trust the other based on my desperate hope that he'll never disappoint me, either I'll never trust, or I'll set him up for failure and we'll both be miserable.
It's my gift to us both, I suppose.
Sort of like a parent trusting a child before he has earned it. Then, knowing what a sacred gift it is to have, the child strives to maintain that trust. It's LOVEly, I think.
But the whole time, knowing, and accepting, that we are all flawed and human. And that IS the beauty of it. Nothing is based on perfection of spirit.
It's a wonderful sentiment, but I think we all set limits on the degree to which we are open to realizing it.
ReplyDeleteI think it boils down to deciding if the other is worth being around, because we will all disappoint each other. That's where a lot of growth happens.
ReplyDeleteBut...the error of free will? We are predestined...by God or by our unconscious?
Take your pick. Your Creator gave you your unconscious...
ReplyDeleteBut don't you think that the more we "tap into" our unconscious, the more have have some control over our behaviors??
ReplyDeleteI do.
The more we tap into it? Or "understand" it? I don't think you necessarily want to "tap" into it... take it from those who have (ie- idiot savants)... and I feel that I do enough "confabulating" already.
ReplyDeleteNo, by "tap into" I mean...listening to our dreams, participating in active imagination, studying the clues we are given.
ReplyDeleteAn awareness of how it's (our unconscious) working and influencing are thoughts and actions can of course be useful.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is like watching two old titans of thought going at it.
ReplyDeleteI doubt you will ever agree... you have vastly different ideologies. But it's interesting to watch you try.
A clash of the titans? And I thought I was Perseus. ;-)
ReplyDelete