Towards a Materiality of Affirmation, Further
Affirmation would be any time a force did do what it was capable of doing. Repression would be happening any time a force was separated from what it was capable of doing and this separation was in some manner willful by the repressed.
A swooping eagle scooping up a tender lamb and devouring it hungrily could be said to be acting affirmatively. The eagle is a force, scooping and eating tender lambs is what it is capable of doing.
An eagle voluntarily forgoing the scooping and eating of tender lambs would be said to be repressed. Such an eagle has been separated from what it can do.
We would say that an eagle in this state is unable to affirm, to act affirmatively -- no matter what this eagle's psychological state, which might be happy, fun-loving, or joyous -- the criteria of affirmation has nothing to do with any psychologistic interpretation -- affirmation is to be defined based on a force doing what it can do, and the ascetic eagle doesn't do what it can do -- it can't affirm and not eat tender lambs, no matter how the eagle "feels" about not eating tender lambs.
Affirmation defined as above is not a matter of opinion, of doxa. There is a force, there is what a force can do, and there is a force separated from what it can do. Affirmation is when a force does what it can do. The definition is a positivism.
If we could find the forces which are human forces, determine the capacity of these forces, we could gauge in which cases a human being or humans were living in affirmation or repression based upon whether or not these humans were separated from what they could do. I think it would be better and clearer in this instance and in general to speak of human forces rather than human beings... In a sense, to speak of "human being" is already to imply a separation of the humanly as force, and what those forces can do. And fascinatingly, this instantiation of the separateness of the human and its forces and what they can do is known as "the ethical." However, I will not be blithe here.
I pause. The gravity of this is enormous.
A swooping eagle scooping up a tender lamb and devouring it hungrily could be said to be acting affirmatively. The eagle is a force, scooping and eating tender lambs is what it is capable of doing.
An eagle voluntarily forgoing the scooping and eating of tender lambs would be said to be repressed. Such an eagle has been separated from what it can do.
We would say that an eagle in this state is unable to affirm, to act affirmatively -- no matter what this eagle's psychological state, which might be happy, fun-loving, or joyous -- the criteria of affirmation has nothing to do with any psychologistic interpretation -- affirmation is to be defined based on a force doing what it can do, and the ascetic eagle doesn't do what it can do -- it can't affirm and not eat tender lambs, no matter how the eagle "feels" about not eating tender lambs.
Affirmation defined as above is not a matter of opinion, of doxa. There is a force, there is what a force can do, and there is a force separated from what it can do. Affirmation is when a force does what it can do. The definition is a positivism.
If we could find the forces which are human forces, determine the capacity of these forces, we could gauge in which cases a human being or humans were living in affirmation or repression based upon whether or not these humans were separated from what they could do. I think it would be better and clearer in this instance and in general to speak of human forces rather than human beings... In a sense, to speak of "human being" is already to imply a separation of the humanly as force, and what those forces can do. And fascinatingly, this instantiation of the separateness of the human and its forces and what they can do is known as "the ethical." However, I will not be blithe here.
I pause. The gravity of this is enormous.
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 1:53 PM
1 Comments:
Yes, Yusef, the gravity of this is enormous.
It is not only "the will to power", it is power itself, human force, ultimate affirmation.
Let's erase "human beings" from our vocabulary.
From now on we are "HUMAN BECOMINGS".
Let's also remember we are advocating absolutism, totalitarianism, and exceptionalism.
I have no problem with this.
We need to explore the clarity of force and the messiness of ethics further.
We are back into the Nietzschean future.
Orla
Post a Comment
<< Home