Slavery

Should individuals, races, sexes, classes and cultures choose to dominate, to submit, or to be free?

Civilization requires more than just intelligence, it requires domestication, slavery of people, places and things. Ants and bees domesticate their environment, in addition to specializing and collaborating, but they do so instinctively, we do so intelligently.

The Master/slave dialectic, in addition to interdependence (large tribes) is more efficient and has replaced the predator/prey, the hunter/hunted dialectic, in addition to independence (small tribes). A surplus of goods can now be extracted. How much surplus does one require? How much is healthy? Some choose to maximize consumption, some choose to minimize.

Slavery can manifest in subtler ways than mere brute force, when dealing with members of our own species e.g. capitalism, religion, etc.

How much should we domesticate people, places and things, and how much should we allow ourselves to be domesticated?

Civilization has advantages and disadvantages, there's been times when I've contemplated living more simply.

This is what I meant by the dilemma of civilization-

Intelligence + dexterity trumps all, or nearly all other qualities- speed, strength, endurance, agility, stamina (actually, humans have superior stamina as well).

This current, relative monopoly on intelligence has offset the balance, the equilibrium of nature. Like playing a game of rock paper scissors where rock can crush paper and scissors.

The ancients comprehended the supreme dilemma even better than we do today. The fall of Aryan Atlantis (assuming it happened) was more fresh in their minds. Where as Nietzsche tells the more left brain tale of master/slave morality, the ancients tell more right brain tales.

It is Prometheus' fire, Pandora's box and Eve's apple. With knowledge comes the power to destroy nature and create artifice, to convert more and more nature into artifice.

It has to do with our natural needs- physical, emotional and mental. Primitive man is closer to deprivation, Civilized man is closer to decadence. At the dawn of the French revolution, it was said 90% of the people died of starvation, and 10% of the people died of gluttony. Who was better off? I suppose I'd rather die of gluttony, but...

The advantage of civilization is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs. The disadvantage is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs.. and more, much, much more, way beyond what is required. In addition to the depletion and the destruction of that which we're dependent on, our environment, abundance and affluence can be detrimental to our own health.

Should the victors (rich, white men) share their spoils with the unfortunate, the vanquished, give back the surplus they've took from nature (after all, they don't need it, right?), or should they hoard it, and take even more, take as much as the earth can bare, increase their wealth and power at the expense of all who live under the sun.. and beyond?

Now, socialism is not necessarily slave morality (you could call it challenger morality), if the slaves take by force and unhypocritically, rather, it becomes slave morality when they attempt to convince the rich/powerful to share with them, or when they deceive (unless of course it is genuine) themselves into thinking they'd share if they were in their place.

The rich/powerful can also be hypocritical, and seek to justify their reign beyond will to power, beyond survival of the fittest, monarchs and capitalists have been known to do this.. or is it genuine?

Is slave morality a hoax, a scam? Or do rich men have nothing to lose by being charitable, and their souls to gain? Western civilization, 500 years of raping, pillaging, plundering and swindling, was it all for not? Should we have never set sail for America?

Europeans freed themselves from bondage, but then we proceeded to enslave the whole earth. Now the greens and liberals want to give it back. Who's right, who's wrong and.. why?

Perhaps the European, being the superior man, is more capable of love and hate, ferocity and tenderness. Nothing can stop the European, perhaps, except himself, or extraterrestrial intervention. High civilization may weaken, atrophy man, his body and his spirit. Perhaps atrophy, in addition to slave morality, is natures way of correcting herself, and reestablishing equilibrium. However, equilibrium may not be desirable. Is there a way to keep European man strong, healthy, in spite of circumstances that make him girlish and contented?

Should the white race specifically, or the human race in general, go on exploiting nature and other humans.. or should we power down our economy?

Quote :

Should individuals, races, sexes, classes and cultures choose to dominate, to submit, or to be free?

Civilization requires more than just intelligence, it requires domestication, slavery of people, places and things. Ants and bees domesticate their environment, in addition to specializing and collaborating, but they do so instinctively, we do so intelligently.

The Master/slave dialectic, in addition to interdependence (large tribes) is more efficient and has replaced the predator/prey, the hunter/hunted dialectic, in addition to independence (small tribes). A surplus of goods can now be extracted. How much surplus does one require? How much is healthy? Some choose to maximize consumption, some choose to minimize.

Do you mean that the master/slave dialectic produces an offspring of surplus? Interesting. Is that Hegel?

Quote :

Slavery can manifest in subtler ways than mere brute force, when dealing with members of our own species e.g. capitalism, religion, etc.

How much should we domesticate people, places and things, and how much should we allow ourselves to be domesticated?

We are operating from a paradigm of thirst, we are consuming everything that is at hand. There is no metaphysical meaning -- no relation direct of the physiology to the psyche -- so there is no sense for what is real, and what is not. We need to establish it, "scientifically". which means artificially, through coercion of consciousness by means of the senses.

This urge is entirely compulsive and has nothing of calculation in it. The calculations following from it are therefore not at all strictly to our benefit, but simply of a great effect. It is this urge that we should cultivate, because we are already cultivating all the rest because of this urge.

Quote :

Civilization has advantages and disadvantages, there's been times when I've contemplated living more simply.

What would that entail?
It is also a challenge to live by more simple principles, but to allow oneself all the complexities of living.

Quote :

This is what I meant by the dilemma of civilization-

Intelligence + dexterity trumps all, or nearly all other qualities- speed, strength, endurance, agility, stamina (actually, humans have superior stamina as well).

This current, relative monopoly on intelligence has offset the balance, the equilibrium of nature. Like playing a game of rock paper scissors where rock can crush paper and scissors.

The ancients comprehended the supreme dilemma even better than we do today. The fall of Aryan Atlantis (assuming it happened) was more fresh in their minds. Where as Nietzsche tells the more left brain tale of master/slave morality, the ancients tell more right brain tales.

It is Prometheus' fire, Pandora's box and Eve's apple. With knowledge comes the power to destroy nature and create artifice, to convert more and more nature into artifice.

But the concept "nature" is an artifice.
There is no one nature, there are natures.
There is never a totality of it, there is always only an amount of interactions of them, forming "webs of meaning" what one may call value-systems, in which interaction is useful to the end of existing-as-such.

Quote :

It has to do with our natural needs- physical, emotional and mental. Primitive man is closer to deprivation, Civilized man is closer to decadence. At the dawn of the French revolution, it was said 90% of the people died of starvation, and 10% of the people died of gluttony. Who was better off? I suppose I'd rather die of gluttony, but...

The advantage of civilization is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs. The disadvantage is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs.. and more, much, much more, way beyond what is required. In addition to the depletion and the destruction of that which we're dependent on, our environment, abundance and affluence can be detrimental to our own health.

Should the victors (rich, white men) share their spoils with the unfortunate, the vanquished, give back the surplus they've took from nature (after all, they don't need it, right?), or should they hoard it, and take even more, take as much as the earth can bare, increase their wealth and power at the expense of all who live under the sun.. and beyond?

To a great extent western man has exhausted its (moral, energetic) resources and needs the east now, to find there a ground of meaning, to include the other in a more meaningful, fertile and productive discourse.

Given that Europe has been the cradle of much of what we now value as culture, what is the state of affairs at this point? By which valuing system is the European man still to be valued superior? Is this valuing system still operative? If so, can we define the standard value to it? Other question; Is European man still capable of valung himself as superior?

Quote :

Now, socialism is not necessarily slave morality (you could call it challenger morality), if the slaves take by force and unhypocritically, rather, it becomes slave morality when they attempt to convince the rich/powerful to share with them, or when they deceive (unless of course it is genuine) themselves into thinking they'd share if they were in their place.

The rich/powerful can also be hypocritical, and seek to justify their reign beyond will to power, beyond survival of the fittest, monarchs and capitalists have been known to do this.. or is it genuine?

Is slave morality a hoax, a scam? Or do rich men have nothing to lose by being charitable, and their souls to gain? Western civilization, 500 years of raping, pillaging, plundering and swindling, was it all for not? Should we have never set sail for America?

All active morality is a hoax, a trick played on the self, like belief in God. Socialism gave the poor the idea that they were not the downtrodden, but the mighty, the conquerers of history. This alone explains the power of the movement, the will to power, emerging from a stronger self-valuation. The key word was "historical necessity". This is what replaced God, and gave the simple man a road to necessity.

Quote :

Europeans freed themselves from bondage, but then we proceeded to enslave the whole earth. Now the greens and liberals want to give it back. Who's right, who's wrong and.. why?

Perhaps the European, being the superior man, is more capable of love and hate, ferocity and tenderness. Nothing can stop the European, perhaps, except himself, or extraterrestrial intervention. High civilization may weaken, atrophy man, his body and his spirit. Perhaps atrophy, in addition to slave morality, is natures way of correcting herself, and reestablishing equilibrium. However, equilibrium may not be desirable. Is there a way to keep European man strong, healthy, in spite of circumstances that make him girlish and contented?

Should the white race specifically, or the human race in general, go on exploiting nature and other humans.. or should we power down our economy?

If it is up to me, the Europeans turn their attention back to their regional geography and the values that spring forth from the real world there. Europe has never been a unity, except in competition and armed conflict. Its riches lie entirely in difference, diversity. The EU is a choke-hold. I think that there can never be unity of culture or economical trust when there is no unity of language.

Can Europe devise a different meta-structure to convey its meaning to itself as an entity? Can Europe effectively value itself, as America has done? I doubt it. There is too little understanding and sympathy back and forth, from Sweden tot Italy, from Spain to Germany - unless a great project of art is envisioned, a new classicism so to speak, an Great Style.