Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:49:16 -0800 (PST)
From: MATTHEW FRANCIS WETTLAUFER <mattw-AT-sfsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Anybody there??????




On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Tony Michael Roberts wrote:

The deference between a master and a slave is
> just exactly this ruthlessness, this desire which feels no need to ground
> itself or justify itself. You may consult either Nietzsche or Marvin
> Gardens ground breaking "The Wit and Wisdom of Vlad the Impaler" on this
> important point in developmental psychology. The world is and always has
> been mostly populated by slaves. pretending otherwise is sheer denial. Any
> political theory which pretends otherwise is sheer denial. Any political
> theory which does not aim at producing masters will produce slaves
> regardless of the intentions of its' author. 

Dear Michael,

I'm not sure about the other author you referred to but Nietzsche is not
speaking of a political theory or description when he writes about nobles
and herd.  He is describing, genealogically, the origin of values (and
because it is genealogical rather than historical origin it is meant as
one possible way among many to explain how we have come to ascribe to
words their particular meanings).  For example, for the "nobles", "good"
was that which was pleasing to the nobles and "bad" was an afterthought of
the good, that which wasn't "good".  For the herd however, valuation
begins with a reaction: that which is counter to the needs or interests or
desires of the herd is "evil", and good becomes the afterthought. 
Nietzsche isn't describing classes or social divisions--he is describing
types of force, types of valuating--the "noble" is the active type, the
one through whom will to power has an affirmative, creative expression. 
The "herd" is the reactive type, the "small man", the man of
ressentiment--its force is characterized as a will to nothingness and
nihilism--it finds its expression in Christianity, socialism,
democracy--but these are just symptoms of the disease.  The disease is the
reactive force, the force that reacts to other, active forces.  This is
all described in Genealogy of Morals and the first two parts of Will to
Power. 

I don't believe Nietzsche ever had a viable or specific political
theory--he wasn't interested in it.  His interest, his whole motive for
writing and thinking was values--how they come to us, how words acquire
their meanings, who designates something as good or bad.  It isn't the
dialectic--the noble could be a blue collar worker, and the herd could be
an aristocrat--he can't be read literally as if he were making a political
observation (let me rephrase that--he can be read that way and has been
but I would suggest that misses much of the wealth of his thought).  

One last point is that that which is noble for Nietzsche is a thing long
past--he is not interested in a return to a period of time when there were
nobles.  The nobles, afterall, were incredibly stupid!  As he mentions in
Genealogy it is thanks to priests and those of ressentiment that we have
culture, laws, education, and so on.  The noble is something of a
cow--everything is immediate, there is no memory--what is good is good and
that's that!  But because most of the world operates along lines of
reactive values and force, --along lines of consciousness and memory--
Nietzsche's interest is towards a self-overcoming that involves forgetting
the values that have been taught to the individual.  The sovereign
individual has to forget what he or she knows in order to become a
self-legislator of values.  That doesn't mean dominating others--the noble
or the sovereign individual was never interested in dominating others,
since that would be a sign of ressentiment and reaction. 

Best regards,
Matt