scienceasceticismasexuality

For this one, i got 39/50. the Prof says it lacks focus. "A great deal of editing is required. For example, discussion of gender + sexuality, while intriguing, has no clear relevance to the main topic (science)"... "Non-linear narrative structure is fascinating, but also confusing: the reader remains uncertain as to the overall direction of your argument"- Dr. Lewis Call

Darwin, Nietzsche and the Structuralists�� Daniel Brownell �� HIST 307

Science, mirrors and language.�

�� The body is the Bodhi Tree;

�� The mind like a bright mirror standing.

�� Take care to wipe it all the time,

�� And allow no dust to cling.�� -Shen-hsiu

�� Part 1:� Science

�� There never was a Bodhi Tree,

�� Nor bright mirror standing.

�� Fundamentally, not one thing exists,

So where is the dust to cling? ?Hui-neng

��

Human Civilization, after 13 billion years of universal expansion -->

��

Pretty profound consequences, eh?� Which consequences?� Depends who you ask.

Was that sign profound enough to convey my intention?� Or must I bother with words to describe, to categorize, to construct interrelations between themselves?� Why be a conduit for academic essay writing unless I get something out of it?� Intent!� Will to Power!� I'll work that out later.� First I will review science as it has evolved from the perspective of the scientists.

What does the wind whisper?� Whooooooosh.� This sound often softens the incessant ringing of philosophy and science in our ears.� We are animals.� We are primates on a planet in a universe.� Darwin, (Time Magazine's Man of the Millenium), pointed out his theory of natural selection:

�� "It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force

�� To the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms;

�� For in this case there can be no artificial increase of food,

and no prudential restraint from marriage."�� - Origin of Species, Ch. 3

Later on, DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick, and Mendel's patterns were applied to genes and alleles and phenotypes and now we have books on biology and are pretty much convinced that the earth is an 'old' planet and that all life has evolved by natural selection.� I feel that profundity coming back.� Or is it just hunger?

After a very 'long' time, primordial Earth produced a replicator that evolved to a single cell organism.� And then this evolved to Homo sapiens.� We?re the most recent primates and now we know it.� I believe it.� It's true.� 100%.� But in a way, there's more to the universe than life.� Biology is only a 'category' of Science (in an ironic way).� We are big, slow animals, whereas photons are small and fast, traveling at c = 3*10 8 m/s as measured from all inertial reference frames.� From a photon's perspective, time does not elapse.�

I think I got this following idea from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time: for the world-in-itself as interpreted as 'energy', time is a thermodynamic unidirectional-tendency of entropy, where entropy is "the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity" (Dictionary.com).� This or some non-psychological equivalent to 'time' necessarily existed before consciousness evolved.�

Lets get Kantian momentarily:� Kant's metaphysics suggest that time and space are inherent structural qualities of our brains.� He also suggests that we cannot be certain of claims about the world outside human experience.� Experience as we know it is somehow human-specific, animal-specific.� It takes 'time' for neuron-firing to propagate across synapses.� If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to sense it, did it fall?� Well, lets not get overly a priori synthetic: the word 'fall' might not be understood by trees, but it implies a certain real energy transfer within the universe.� If a guppy was watching the tree fall from his fishbowl, the words 'tree' and 'fall' might be meaningless to it, but still his eyes receive photons and his little fishy brain processes them, if only in a fishy way.� The question about the tree uses language and therefore artificially projects a 'concept' upon Science's brute fact of existence (as mass/energy within space-time).�

��

You've got existence and an evolved cerebrum.� What do you get when you add them together?� Wonder?� Understanding?�� You get big fat textbooks with principles and laws and theories.� And as far as truth goes, the scientists seem to have found the right words to convince me of energy as a 'real' thing.� Is this just today's dominant paradigm, as Kuhn suggests?� Is my giant textbook the current 'simplest' explanation of the real world?� Claude Levi-Strauss says, "A truly scientific analysis must be real, simplifying, and explanatory"(Ch 2).� My Modern Physics book has chapters on Nuclear Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.� Nuclear physics talks about quarks making up protons and neutrons, and it describes the subatomic electron, tau and mu families and their respective neutrino counterparts.� All energy manifestations have inversely-related 'particle' and 'wave' properties.� Quantum mechanics has explained the periodic table by plugging the Schroedinger equation with quantum numbers and the potential energy of your particular system.� Solve for Phi and square your answer and you've got a probability distribution (for atoms, an electron 'shell' or 'cloud') to determine where you will most likely find an electron.� God seems to play dice with the universe.� Einstein's relativity explains that "the relationships of positions and times as measured in one coordinate system and another are not what we would have expected on the basis of our intuitive ideas" (Feynman p.93).� For particles with mass, time dilates and length contracts mathematically according to the mass's velocity plugged into the Lorentz equations.�� We must admit of space and time as an interweaved fabric 'space-time' which is curved near heavy masses.�

Theories of Everything (TOEs) and Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) look for a final theory - a mathematically simple model to explain it all, to make QM & Relativity jive together, since currently the theories' equations give funny answers when used to predict interactions at the (10-33cm) Planck-length scale.� But today's vying theories are far from being plausible in their current form. �I got the gist of Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe book on string theory:� Currently with particle physics, we have 3 families of elementary particles: quarks, leptons and force carriers.� String theory says that the quarks and leptons are Planck-length one-dimensional loops or 'strings' that appear to us as particles because we don't and can't have the technology or energy to 'zoom in' to Planck-length levels.� You know, I lent Greene's book to a friend, so lets just say I'm lying, but that what he said sounded something like this:� We use string theory and then the seemingly random number of particle families (3? Why 3?) is nicely explained as an obvious consequence of string vibrations being somehow quantized.� Then he starts describing the concepts and math he's using and the problems he's facing:� 'supersymmetry', 'Calibi-Yau topology', 11 dimensions, and other such.� He lost me there.� What I really remember was that he was feeling the elegance of string theory, and that it was only a matter of working around the limits.� If the math worked out, then that was it.� Science.� 'The Answer'.� His attitude seemed to be guy-to-guy: "Hey man, stick with QM and Einstein for now, but I think this string theory stuff is it.� I wouldn't write this book if I didn't think so.� We'll see.� We'll talk in 20 years."

In The End of Science, John Horgan talks with famous scientists, and gets the general impression that empirical science is over.� He distinguishes 'ironic science' as "pursuit of science from a speculative, postempirical mode".� "Ironic science resembles literary criticism in that it offers points of view, opinions, which are, at best, interesting, which provoke further comment.� But it does not converge on the truth.� It cannot achieve empirically verifiable surprises that force scientists to make substantial revisions in their basic description of reality".� "I do not mean to imply that ironic science has no value.� Far from it.� At its best ironic science, like great art or philosophy or, yes, literary criticism, induces wonder in us; it keeps us in awe before the mystery of the universe.� But it cannot achieve its goal of transcending the truth we already have.� And it certainly cannot give us- in fact, it protects us from- The Answer, a truth so potent that it quenches our curiosity once and for all time.� After all, science itself decrees that we humans must always be content with partial truths."(pp.7-8).� I think most scientists today would agree to look into the other connotation of "the end of science" along the vein of Manly Hall's: "The end of science is not to prove a theory, but to improve mankind."�

��

�� Part 2: �� Carrie and Nietzsche's turn

The other night, this girl Carrie, whose name was just mentioned in the other room- she was going to take ENGL x457 with the other philosopher types of the honors-related cliques.� She's beautiful and blonde and was going to take the Nietzsche class but had a fundamental disagreement with Professor Miklowitz because he didn't understand her Hegel essay for some class.� She sat next to me after the Brownian motion at the irish-car-bomb & sushi party.� She digged the Zeppelin.� Led backwards is Del... ooh and... Del Taco!� Deep dark eyes and she knows it.�

The random guy with the wine does a 5-star acknowledgement and ring-prying cap-opening grandfather-two-buck-chuck Italian mafia last scion POP.� And she felt the linguistic bond of a brilliant psychological keyword to put a label to a possible profundity of commonality between Nietzsche/ Modern Physics/ General Relativity reading youths who happen to like the dark brown quality of the other's eyes (though ladies may disagree).� She gave value in the social spectrum of friendishness to the word 'asexual'.� Classic.� Because in a post-modern world, (as the postmodernists say), Dionysus and Apollo, God and Buddha, Jesus and Alex from A Clockwork Orange are at a party, and you're invited.� Some might call it a sausage fest.� But I'll bet Dionysus is bringing his Maenads and it will be an awesome night.� Tonight we party, tomorrow who knows?

OK, so she admired or empathized with a proposed common 'asexuality'.� So perhaps with this generation of Nietzsche sympathizers, where science fiction is becoming the norm, and 1900-2000 'psychology' has been accepted as something you understood at some point or currently do, and perhaps a morbid understanding of Freudian linguistic structural anthropological kinship relativity boredom (cause if you're into Nietzsche, you've gotta mask profundity with ambiguous grammar and verbosity) has assailed you.� 'Asexuality' is a surpassing of something, for this girl to say it, if only for shits and giggles- a surpassing of some nobler word.� I will argue the profundity of her term 'asexual' later after an extended Nietzsche interlude on 'Modern ideas' and 'Science':

"Every profound spirit needs a mask: even more, around every profound spirit a mask is growing continually, owing to the constantly false, namely shallow, interpretation of every word, every step, every sign of life he gives."(BG&E 2.40)

He is referring to "a man whose sense of shame has some profundity".� Just after this point in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche states "A new species of philosophers is coming up", who is still a friend of truth, but no longer dogmatic.� Nietzsche wants to point out the qualities of "these philosophers of the future".� "Very free spirits" indeed, but "something more, higher, greater, and thoroughly different that does not want to be misunderstood and mistaken for something else. But saying this I feel an obligation - almost as much to them as to ourselves who are their heralds and precursors, we free spirits - to sweep away a stupid old prejudice and misunderstanding about the lot of us: all too long it has clouded the concept "free spirit" like a fog." (BG&E 2.44)

What? Who?

These advocates of 'modern ideas', "who want just about the opposite of what accords with our intentions and instincts -"

"They belong, briefly and sadly, among the levelers - these falsely so-called "free spirits" - being eloquent and prolifically scribbling slaves of the democratic taste and its "modern ideas"; they are all human beings without solitude, without their own solitude, clumsy good fellows whom one should not deny either courage or respectable decency - only they are unfree and ridiculously superficial, above all in their basic inclination to find in the forms of the old society as it has existed so far just about the cause of all human misery and failure - which is a way of standing truth happily upon her head!� What they would like to strive for with all their powers is the universal green-pasture happiness of the herd, with security, lack danger, comfort, and an easier life for everyone; the two songs and doctrines which they repeat most often "equality of rights" and "sympathy for all that suffers" - and suffering itself they take for something that must be abolished."

(BG&E 2.44)

Chapter 253 in Beyond Good and Evil describes a short cultural-origin war between the English and French and German. �The 'modern ideas' are English in origin (Darwin, Mill, Spencer - "respectable but mediocre Englishmen").� "What people call 'modern ideas' or 'the ideas of the 18th century' or 'French ideas' - that, in other words, against which the German spirit has risen with a profound disgust - was of English origin."� "European noblesse - of feeling, of taste, of manners, taking the word, in short, in every higher sense - is the work and invention of France; European vulgarity, the plebeianism of modern ideas, that of England."

So back to Nietzsche's fog removal:� What are "we opposite men"?

What do we have our eyes opened to?

"We think that hardness, forcefulness, slavery, danger in the alley and the heart, life in hiding, stoicism, the art of experiment and devilry of every kind, that everything evil, terrible, tyrannical in man, everything in him that is kin to beasts of prey and serpents, serves the enhancement of the species "man" as much as its opposite does" (BG&E 2.44)

So perhaps now with that taste in our mouths we can examine some of Nietzsche's ideas about Science:

"Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength - life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results." (BG&E 1.13)

Author of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins, might point out that us animals are merely vessels for genes.� He would argue that life started as a replicator, and therefore any life around today is here because of the successful self-preservation and replication of its ancestors directly back to the first cell.� Dawkins probably wouldn't consider self-preservation the cardinal 'instinct' either.� For life forms subject to threatening predators and erratic food supplies and harsh environments, self-preservation and replication are definitely cardinal instincts - In human life, civilized socialization and the ascetic ideal have tamed these instincts and added libidinal substitutes, such as procrastination and writing essays on Nietzsche.� Perhaps we should argue that Nietzsche's "life itself is will to power" uses 'is' instead of 'as' because he is defining a more humanly useful categorization of 'life' than the scientific life-as-gene-vessel view.�

Nietzsche claims physics is an "interpretation and exegesis of the world and not a world explanation; but insofar as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more - namely, as an explanation" (BG&E 1.14)� Nietzsche never made it to the 21st century, and I wonder what his opinion would have been on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.� He probably would have stuck to his claim.� Schroedinger's equation works, but does not "explain".� Returning to Horgan: we have reached the limits of knowledge regarding empirical science.� The last line of The End of Science is "And now that science- true, pure, empirical science- has ended, what else is there to believe in?"� Nietzsche seems to have predicted this and thus focuses more on scientists than science to get his point across.� In the "We Scholars" section of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche describes the 'scientific man':

"A type that does not dominate and is neither authoritative nor self-sufficient: he has industriousness, patient acceptance of his place in rank and file, evenness and moderation in abilities and needs, an instinct for his equals and for what they need;"�� (BG&E 6.206)

He is above describing your average 'scholar' as opposed to a genius, (ie. "To one who either begets or gives birth, taking both terms in their most elevated sense").� He then describes the 'objective spirit':

"a mirror - he is no 'end in himself'"... "Whatever still remains in him of a 'person' strikes him as accidental, often arbitrary, still more often disturbing: to such an extent has he become a passageway and reflection of strange forms and events even to himself" - "When confusing him for so long with the philosopher, with the Caesarian cultivator and cultural dynamo, one accorded him far too high honors and overlooked his most essential characteristics: he is an instrument, something of a slave though certainly the most sublime type of slave, but in himself nothing - presque rien!"�� (BG&E 6.207)

��

"Presque rien" means 'almost nothing'.� "He is no goal, no conclusion and sunrise, no complementary man in whom the rest of existence is justified".� He is a 'mirror' in that he is a responder, a man without substance and content.� Not a "first cause, nothing tough, powerful, self-reliant that wants to be master."� Check how he ends it: "Consequently, also nothing for women, in parenthesi."

At this point, we should understand what Nietzsche is criticizing if we did not before.� The asceticism that has come with the end of religion and science is not noble.� At the end of the Genealogy, Nietzsche describes the problem of the ascetic ideal: "The value of truth must for once be experimentally called into question." (GoM 3.24).�

"These Nay-sayers and outsiders of today who are unconditional on one point -their insistence on intellectual cleanliness; these hard, severe, abstinent, heroic spirits who constitute the honor of our age; all these pale atheists, anti-Christians, immoralists, nihilists; these skeptics, ephectics ['Ephectic' refers to those who suspend judgment, 'hectic' to those suffering from tuberculosis], hectics of the spirit (they are all hectics in some sense or other), these last idealists of knowledge in whom alone the intellectual conscience dwells and is incarnate today-they certainly believe they are as completely liberated from the ascetic ideal as possible, these 'free, very free spirits'; and yet, to disclose to them what they themselves cannot see- for they are too close to themselves: this [ascetic] ideal is precisely their ideal, too"

�� (GoM 3.24)

I would say rather that they know only too well the connection between their life and the ascetic ideal.� They understand the connection between science and the ascetic ideal.� But then I find these qualities to be closer to the character type described in chapter 26, on 'historiography' - "its noblest claim is that it is a mirror".� "It no longer wishes to 'prove' anything; it disdains to play the judge and considers this a sign of good taste - it affirms as little as it denies; it ascertains, it 'describes'. -� But at least they're not like the 'contemplatives'.� "I would even prefer to wander through the gloomy, gray, cold fog with those historical nihilists!"� The contemplative "betrays immediately with the high falsetto of his applause what he lacks, where he lacks it, where in this case the Fates have applied their cruel shears with, alas, such surgical skill!" (GoM 3.26)� He makes a philological joke about how nature gave the lion sharp teeth, the bull horns, and Nietzsche a foot, "for kicking to pieces these rotten armchairs, this cowardly contemplativeness, this lascivious historical eunuchism, this flirting with ascetic ideals, this justice-tartuffery of impotence!"�

I understand this as Nietzsche's dislike of a consistent dishonesty to life.� "All honor to the ascetic ideal insofar as it is honest!� So long as it believes in itself and does not play tricks on us!"� But to the 'contemplatives', don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.� Better to be a mirror than a noisy fraud.�

Nietzsche returns to address the nihilistic mirror people, you and I, the ones' still left reading, with a reminder of "our problem, the problem of the meaning of the ascetic ideal."� Nietzsche describes atheism, "unconditional honest atheism (and it's the only air we breath, we more spiritual men of this age!)" as what is left, not as a remnant, but as the kernel of 2000 years of the West's evolution towards arriving at the conclusion that there is no anthropomorphic 'God'.� He points out how Buddhism reached this conclusion 500 years before the West's current calendar began.� Given a will to truth ideal, the same conclusion is reached.� It is now up to us to deal with Nietzsche's summarized problem statement: "Man would rather will nothingness than not will".

The problem of nothingness, I have addressed in another paper of mine, The Paradox of Oscillating Overanalyses.� It examines lack of meaning as an oscillation between awareness of the nothingness and distraction from it.� I point out 'cognitive' and 'biological' as an important distinction - I relegate nothingness to a problem of words within the cognitive realm, (I hear Buddha and Wittgenstein did the same).� I might call this a zen-like method for immediately transcending the problem of nothingness.� "At the heart of the paradox is the idea that cognitive preferences are meaningless, and yet as a result of biological processes, happiness is itself a preferable state." (POOA).�

Danger in happiness. - `Now everything is turning out well for me, now I love every destiny - who would like to be my destiny?' (BG&E 4.103)

After Zen removal of the philosophical problem, asceticism is left as a problem in a social context, a problem that only exists if you acknowledge it - I affirm that opportunities for the Dionysian abound!� Confidence plays a big role in amor fati.� Thus most atheist scientist types today, who are focused on Hall's end of science rather than Horgan's, take asceticism to be a social problem, a step upon Maslow's pyramid, which they too knowingly ascend and descend and hop around upon.� They are honest to the ascetic ideal - insofar as they are content with their footing.�

There is a Jewish proverb: One who is bothered by the fault of his friend, is in actuality bothered by the same fault found within himself.� In this manner, a friend becomes your 'mirror', showing what needs improvement in your own self.� I think here is a meeting point of social asceticism and cognitive nihilism:� Friends understand enough of the justifying logic behind your own faults, masks and mirrors and you understand enough of theirs.� Friendship is a comfortable molding feedback loop in which to create (or sublimate?) justifications, values and nobler experiences.� Language is typically only a secondary, affirming medium of communication for established friends.� Indeed, what are greater goals unless your vision includes friends? - Unless someone will affirm achievement of your goal?� (Why do anything just for yourself? �Just do it then.)

Why settle for less?� Why settle for misunderstanding?� Why create misunderstanding?� I'm going out on a limb: the opposite sex.�

The same affects in man and woman are yet different in tempo: therefore man and woman do not cease to misunderstand each other.�� (BG&E 4.85)

The beautiful biologist Jackie described to Brian Wourms and I a physiological claim that female brains are more suited to multitasking, whereas males' are more one-minded. �True, very true, I nodded, looking at her pretty eyes.� Wourms raised an eyebrow to me, and I said "yeah it's cause men structure their shit so that we don't have to multitask."� He laughed, said "shit yeah" and put out his hand for me to high-five. And I hit it.� Jackie had long returned to the other conversation.�

You'll notice that women of the world vary greatly in their cognition and action toward the male's problem of asceticism.� My opinions as of now are subjective, but necessary to link in Carrie's word asexual.�

"When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexually.� Sterility itself disposes one toward a certain masculinity of taste; for man is, if I may say so, "the sterile animal"" (BG&E 144).�

Most women piece-meal-intuit the important points of philosophy they have heard along the way, and disregard the more depressing aspects ( - why waste time on nothingness when there is ample distraction?)� Men often get tired of women because of their female adeptness at being distracted.� With the idea of womens' rights gaining acceptance in society, a woman knows her sensuality and love are her gifts and tools, to be dispensed and used in the social arena - on her own distracted terms, and on terms suggested by the male's approach in expressing his affection, intentions, or lack thereof.�

I found Nietzsche's remarks on women in the Our Virtues chapter to be funny and outdated, but I took his point.� He attacks women's rights on the grounds that it dulls the "Eternal-Feminine", the most feminine instincts:

"Woe when "the eternally boring in women" - she is rich in that! - is permitted to venture forth!� When she begins to unlearn thoroughly and on principle her prudence and art - of grace, of play, of chasing away worries, of lightening burdens and taking things lightly - and her subtle aptitude for agreeable desires!"�

�� (BG&E 7.232)

We return to Carrie's term, asexual.� Asexuality refers to a chosen abstinence from sex.� And I think that this is the destination of the ascetic ideal.� Asexuality is not abstinence from physical relationships, but from having sex with someone who is not one of the ones.� If someone is a one, you will surely know it when the time comes!� Indeed physical relationships are desired with those who might be a one, but sex is kept special for the right first one that comes along.� The general consensus of Beatles and people on deathbeds is: "All you need is love".� And love is what we offer with our eyes, with our whole beings.� We discard notions of a singular the one, but maintain intellectual cleanliness regarding sex.� We don't want to give in... We want to believe... in love.��

"All I ask for when I pray,
Steady rollin' woman gonna come my way.
Need a woman gonna hold my hand
And tell me no lies, make me a happy man."�� (Black Dog, Led Zeppelin)

And finally I'd like to conclude with superfluous analytical terms, class and caste, as approaches to heterosexuality.� Class sexuality is two-leveled, entailing intellectual cleanliness regarding choosing to have sex with those established as a one; but also, as heirs of the ascetic ideal, their initial communication of sexual intent must be sublimated to indirect or established methods. Caste sexuality is more direct, and does not want to have to deal with language and specifics - hence at times it is also less picky.

Part 3:�� A Structural Analysis of Parts 1 & 2

Humans, (or women and men), are undeniably analyzed with differing vocabularies and grammars by sociologists, anthropologists, rock stars and students.� Linguistics is the study of language, in which there is found to be no necessary connection between signifier and signified.� Duh.� The claim to fame of the structuralists is that "For the first time, a social science is able to formulate necessary relationships."��

"First, structural linguistics shifts from the study of conscious linguistic phenomena to study of their unconscious infrastructure; second, it does not treat terms as independent entities, taking instead as its - basis of analysis the relations between terms; third, it introduces the concept of system - "Modern phonemics does not merely proclaim that phonemes are always part of a system; it shows concrete phonemic systems and elucidates their structure"; finally, structural linguistics aims at discovering general laws, either by induction "or . . . by logical deduction, which would give them an absolute character."

"Like phonemes, kinship terms are elements of meaning; like phonemes, they acquire meaning only if they are integrated into systems."

(Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, Ch. 2)

The structural scheme below and the following analysis attempt to reveal the cohesion of my essay.� The structure is composed of 3 main concepts: Science, Asceticism and Asexuality broken into their respective system sub-components below.� Each conceptual unit represents a successive level of analysis relying on the previous unit:�

Science

�� We are animals on a planet in a universe.

Kant's concepts and their relevance

�� Science has a current conflict between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

�� Attempts to solve the conflict require lots of ugly math.

�� Empirical vs. Ironic science

We are facing the limits of knowledge.

Empirical science is over.

�� "The end of science is not to prove a theory, but to improve mankind"

Asceticism

�� Carrie used the word 'asexual' in some context.

�� The importance will only be understood later.

�� "Very free spirits"

�� The levelers, advocates of modern ideas

Origin of modern ideas

�� "We opposite men"

Biology

�� Richard Dawkins's gene-vessel view

Life as will to power is a more useful construct than life as gene-vessel

Physics

Physics is an interpretation, not an explanation

The scientist

�� Not noble in behavior

The objective spirit

�� A mirror - one who does not assert values

"Consequently, also nothing for women, in parenthesi."

�� Historiography

�� The value of truth

�� The will to truth is called into question

�� Nihilists

�� Connection between asceticism and nihilism

�� All honor to the ascetic ideal, insofar as it is honest!

�� Better a nihilist than a 'contemplative'

�� The meaning of the ascetic ideal

�� 'Unconditional honest atheism' as the West's Buddhism

�� Our problem

"Man would rather will nothingness than not will"��

�� Paradox of Oscillating Overanalyses (POOA)

�� Relegation of nihilism to a problem of words

�� Zen removal of philosophical problems

Asceticism as social problem

Nietzsche's danger in happiness

Maslow's pyramid

�� Friendship

�� Friends as mirrors

�� Friends as understand-ers��

�� Misunderstanding between men and women

�� Women

�� Women as social animals

�� Distraction in women

�� Women's rights

�� Nietzsche's danger in woman's rights

"Asexuality"

The destination of the ascetic ideal

�� Class sexuality

�� Desire for an ideal love

�� Abstinence as method to allow for ideal love

�� Caste sexuality

�� Disregard of class sexuality

Structural analysis (of unconscious linguistic infrastructure) written in the third person:

Daniel Brownell brings to mind the advances made of Science as a system of explanation.� He does not mention religion at all.� He points out Nietzsche's qualm with the word 'explanation'.� He then points out the limits of science and the alternative 'end of science' which is to 'improve mankind'.� He does not describe these improvements.� Instead he uses Nietzsche's philosophy to clear up the philosophical matters of Science and 'modern ideas' while unconsciously he was thinking about using medical, energy and food sciences - precisely 'modern ideas' - to end suffering.� Daniel Brownell unconsciously thought that the world still has room for infrastructural improvement.� Unconsciously, he is not entirely convinced by Nietzsche's asshole view on suffering.

He leads the discussion from Science to scientists, describing Nietzsche's criticism of ascetic types and his POOA's reply to "Man would rather will nothingness than not will".� He decided to veer the discussion towards sexuality, because Carrie had given him an idea about where to aim his essay.� Also unconsciously involved was an ultimate frisbee party he had attended with Carrie and other honors people.� The honors class clique did little (or nothing) to mix with the caste clique and left after saying what needed to be said to the others who came to them.�

There was a neon glow-sign that said "Mr. No Class", and I associated with this sign the profundity explained in the Asexuality conceptual unit.� The frisbee party caste danced and moving fluidly to alcoholic rhythm.� Some guy and girl were making out on the couch.� A beautiful girl, (Chelsea, I think), was making out with Julia.� Chelsea's first boyfriend's name was Daniel Joseph, like mine, and she wanted to kiss me, but I said that I had thrown up outside, and it would be wrong of me to kiss her.� Instead she kissed my forehead and left.� Later, the noble ascetic prince, Mike, returned with Julia's burrito and Julia shared some with us, and gave Mike and Jen, (the girl making out on the couch, who I could have been making out with, had I followed her caste method cues), and I, a ride home.� Daniel then noticed it was 6:11am and the birds were starting to chirp, and he was on page 12 - his essay had reached maximum length, and his essay would be due soon, and he needed to sleep in order to wake up and print this on the school computer and hand it in by noon.� And then he had to do his other homework!� He was glad that there was enough substance in his essay to allow for ending it with an almost patronizing use of structuralism, because consciously he figured his professor has a sense of humor.

"This crown of the laugher, the rose-wreath crown: to you, my brothers, I throw this crown. Laughter I have pronounced holy: you higher men, learn - to laugh!" - Zarathustra

�� Outside works cited:

Brownell, Daniel

Paradox of Oscillating Overanalyses- (I'm citing my own shit)

�� http://www.geocities.com/dbrownell83/POOA.html

Horgan, John

�� The End of Science

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws