File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_2002/nietzsche.0202, message 9

Subject: Re: Of the Three Metamorphoses
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:31:17 -0600

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruth Chandler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Of the Three Metamorphoses

> >>> Julie Varvaro <> 02/17 1:36 pm >>>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juan Ciriza" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Of the Three Metamorphoses
> >
> > What I find interesting is the connection between the child and the
> overman:
> > the child should supposedly be seen as the overman, or at least what N
> calls
> > 'a creator' in Z (creator of values among other things).
> > And I agree with him too in finding the concept of the child only
> > vaguely sketched and not perfectly outlined: perhaps the overman/child
> belongs
> > more to the future than to the present/past.
> >
> >
> in the prologue, the hermit/saint does say that Z is a child. It seems
> there might be a stage pass the child.
> Alternatively, Deleuze suggests that Z only achieves two out of the three
metamorphoses which would account for the vagueness of the child.

The camel too is vague.  In some sense, it leads me to believe that one
either can become a camel or one can't. It reflects a certain 'type.'

Does deleuze suggest that in N and Phil?
> might i add that the key difference should be the ability to affirm
> the ER.  there must be the right amount of remembering and forgetfulness.
> One cannot forget the 'greatest weight' yet one must be able to affirm it.
> >
> This is one of the reasons why I would suggest a tripartite process. If
the forgetfullness of the child were an end goal, this 'end' would be quite,
quite stupid. However, I am not sure that we can determine the right amount
of remembering and forgetting without calling upon a superhistorical
monument to decide this. Further, it is not clear that one would continue to
expereince the greatest weight as a weight. It might be that affirmation
resides in transforming the feeling of great weight into a feeling of
lightness. One can carry more if one is not burdened with it?

that seems to be going in the right direction to me. On other way to put it
might be, once one can digest it, it no longer is a burden but a source of

In terms of the horizon (or as you put it, the superhistorical monument), is
the overman just to provide this goal? (in Z at least.)
> > -There was an additional opinion which agreed with Nathan's:
> >
> > > forgetfulness of children, which helps them reinvent themselves,
> >
> > I think ressentiment should be overcome by anyone (not just children)
> wants
> >
> > to reinvent him/herself, or simply by anyone who wants to live in the
> present
> > (and plan for the future) and not in the past (which is when
> > begins). And some authors believe Z's teachings are aimed mainly at the
> future
> > (the overman, who has to reinvent himself in order to exist as such),
> not
> > even to the present, which (according to these authors) Z/N finds
> > coupled to the past (the present would be just a consequence of the
> >
> My view is that N gets it wrong by locating a discrete typology of types,
ressentiment versus nobility. I think he gets it wrong because he never
finishes overcoming his own ressentiments. However,  I think there is a case
for modes of emphasis in each an every body, some of which are more full of
ressentiment than others, some of which may be more noble as N discusses it.
N can't pose nobility  for the few (or the one_ without the conditions of
ressentiment for the majority-one of the few places where he explicitly
discusses the material conditions for the overman are as surplus
countermovement to the conditions of mass enslavement. the majority thus
stand as a dance floor, a dance floor machined into specialised utilities,
for a noble culture above and beyond their all-too-human concerns. You might
want to dispute this point, but I cannot reconcile my uptake of Nietzsche
with my politics without posing a way out of this dilemma. This does not
mean a return to 'everything is equal!' however.
This is one aspect of his thought that i just do not understnad. In HAH he
clearly indicates tha the overall health of each is essential to the well
being of the free spirits. He discusses using psychological methods to help
each create a solid center.  He then posits the necessity of master/slave
type relationships, and even goes so far as to proclaim the need of a
religion to control and manipulate the masses (the ER, as hinted at in BGE

And how indeed won't the decadence and ressentiment of the masses destroy
the unifying goal (or the creation of a people, under the goal of the
overman)?  It seems that this is where N's ideas of breeding come in, and
i'm just not so sure they are even helpful to his overall project.

> as a 'book for all or no one,' with the circular movement of teachings, it
> seems that the teachings are for the present, for 'fishing for men' in the
> present who will live for the future, i.e. for the overman.  the present
> to create the overman, or the conditions for his growth.
> > -John Peterson wrote:
> >
> >
> > This would be a negative perspective of the child. The child as a
> manipulable
> > being. And I can't agree with it, because it would imply that Z's
> teachings
> > would not be destined to the overman, but to the individuals who would
> control
> > (or manipulate) the overman. Sounds too dissappointing to me, as I think
> N's
> > target readers are the future overmen and not the leaders who'd controle
> them.
> he only uses the plural form once.  it doesnt' seem as if there are to be
> 'overmen' but rather one 'overMAN.'
> can we not think of Nietzsche's 'children', strictly boys I might add, as
vehicles to the 'overMAN'- alternatively, all the kings horses and all the
kings men, will never put Dionysus back together again!

that is exactly how he puts at the end of the prologue of Z, where Z
recognizes his need to go fishing.
> >
> > > Camel, Lion, Child. First work, then war, and finally - What?
> >
> > -Ruth Chandler wrote:
> >
> > > I find it easier to think of all three things as a process rather than
> > > series with an end product.
> >
> exactly. the conception of time does change in Z, and to think that it is
> linear would be to remain wrapped up in a ressentiful conception of time.
> agreed!
> > I'm sorry but can't agree with that. N's words were too clear in my
> opinion:
> >
> > "how the spirit shall become a camel, and the camel a lion, and the lion
> at
> > last a child."
> >
> > I mean, there would be a process with three stages and a final end
> product.
> but does the rest of the book show us this? or doesn't Z learn and grow
> change his teachings?
> It would be good to share a reading of some of these themes?
> Juan, if you are interested, would you like to say how Z supports your

i second that idea.

	--- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005