— Have he been understood? — Dionysus against the Crucified.
— Nah yo’ the abysssssss.
I’ll say like crematedadolescent, copulate with the abyss. Fuck em’ abyss.
Haha, Yolo, my good French friend. Is the “against” italicized in your translation/s? The one in English that sticks in my mind is versus, italicized. Have I been understood?—Dionysus versus the Crucified. What an enigmatic thing for someone such as Nietzsche to say in his autobiography, eh? I mean, wow wtf?? I’m kind of disappointed it was so obscurantist, but I think there are people out there that are satisfied with such obscurantism, because it keeps the ill-bred ones like me out of the filigree of the Nietzsche-game, just on the periphery and therefore no trouble for anyone that matters.
As for the nihilist-intercourse, yes, say Yes after fucking the abyss. Roll over in the bed and bask for a moment then fall asleep into the non-abyss dream-world that is Life. Fucking the abyss is the perfect remedy for a declining life. Fuck it and you will die (descend) and as far as you descend you will ascend just as high, just as many feet if we could measure it in feet…
My traduction say: «M’a-t-on compris? — Dionysos contre le Crucifié.» So yeah, it’s italicized. What I think he meant to do was to point out his rivals as Plato did with the sophists. Philosophy has rivals from without (power («pouvoir», not «puissance»), doxa, etc.) and from within (publicists who have the arrogance of saying they create concepts, pretendants to truth that only the sage has i.e. Plato/King philosopher).
As for Nietzsche, when he designate his rivals, that as nothing to do with the veracity on one’s logos. His method of interpretation, as you know, is intempestivity, so their’s no such things as transcendant Ideas which our unconsciousness hides and that are therefor matter of interpretations. In Nietzsche, all is pure immanence, so what matters is : which power («puissance») produces? The dyonisian, which is a creation out of the highest form of affirmation; the plus-value of life. Or is it a declining life trying to justifies itself (system of judgement which need to anticipate an end, his apocalypse, in order to judge)? is it the symptomatic of a tired life wanting to be resolved and hence reach nirvana, moksha, beatitude, salute, totality (syndrome of the Crucified, promiss of an end, the stoping of the mouvements of thought, stoping karma by cuting from maya, choas reaching definitive stability)? All that Nietzsche antagonises from his philosophical perspective and affinity with certain problems. I didn’t talked about Hegel’s totality, cause I didn’t red him and I like to take philosophers with respect, but I think that this is why Deleuze never touched him, but with gloves, always to antagonise him: he erected negativity to the highest form of intensity, as did Jesus.
As for Nietzsche’s obscurantism, I think it is only due to his method of interpretation. His physiognomical methodology in which symptoms always lead back to other symtoms is always ateleological, BUT illness is a point of view on health and vice-versa. Nihilism overcome by itself. How come guys like Nietzsche, Deleuze, Camus, with such small healths, have created some of the most vitalist philosophies?
A mix of your movement of ideas and our difference in native language has made what you say interesting. (Badiou pointed out that Deleuze loves the word “interesting” - another story). Intempestivity. Is that “untimely”, “out of season” like Nietzsche’s (from now on referred to as “His”) ’70s book? The term squiggly red lines on tumblr and in my mind. I imagine the “pretendants” you speak of to be the philosophical “underlaborers” Nietzsche speaks of, the herd-appropriation He prophesied. I know of that type. Many of the Anglo-interpretations strike me as that, like Arthur Danto, R.I.P.
Anyway, you’re right, Nietzsche’s version of the “sophist” is the nihilist, the anti-immanentist (thus the Socratic), those who abuse their power of reason via the (excuse)exercise of a romantic anticipation of Unity. I don’t like Nietzsche’s dichotomy here, though. This is probably the central reason I find Late-Nietzsche off-kilter and not-as-cracked-up-as-It’s-supposed-to-be. He’s a sad old man spiritually after On the Genealogy. He’s broken and desperate and he can’t fulfill the ideals he set in place in his most youthful, exuberant states, much like Plato in his late period, with his quasi-fascistic Laws. Nietzsche started to think that he wouldn’t be able to reach out to people unless he watered his teaching down. He noticed the need to not go beyond good and evil, to not operate (exoterically) with a gay science. He went so beyond good and evil, his science became so gay, that it folded into the opposite; the wave washed back into the ocean.
I like that you ask if His immanentism is the sign of a declining life. I think yes, that is the case, but I think that asking that questioning is itself a sign of a life in ascent. It’s going down but it’s so far down that it is beginning to merge with “the up”. The up is below it but by virtue of that it is above it. If this smells like bullshit consider that if it smelled like Zen it wouldn’t be Zen. I truly believe in this type of cyclic process of life. Hit the extreme of one polarity (1), start sniffing around for the Other polarity (2) and thus in a sense achieve the Other Other (3).
"BUT illness is a point of view on health and vice-versa" ——- This and the last thing I said encompass in a really convenient way my problem with Nietzschean ~Heracliteanism, and this ties in with the Oedipus myth also - there is a certain level of knowledge that should be gained before one should simply lapse (nobly lapse) into ignorance, before stabbing one’s eye’s out. At a certain point, the dialectic of opposites melts into itself and becomes the opposite of what the dialectic sought to embody in the first place. Knowledge is only "knowledge" when there’s a moderate, non-hubristic degree of knowledge.
Nietzsche and Kafka and Camus and Deleuze emerged as the hybristic sign or omen of too-much-knowledge. They played the devil’s advocate so well that they eventually came to forget that they were beyond the devil—they became the devil—the proto-dionysian as Bataille has claimed. They (including Bataille) were the immanentists par excellence (the Spinozists, the Artauvians) but they only have it 1/2 right. The other half is the transcendence, we always have to go beyond our lot, and immanence is ours (mine in the U.S. anyway) - I keep wanting to end on a note of solidity-in-view but I give up, I want someone to challenge me themselves and take what I’m getting at beyond what I’m getting at.
1st, how could such a benign post got this long? Nontological intercourses, maybe-ish.
2nd, I translated intempestivity from frensh word « intempestivité », which is the word most frensh translators use, but it also happens to be a word in english. But yeah, it’s exacly the untimely. I guess you name them ”Untimely considerations”, in frensh it’s « considérations intempestives ». Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen. I like it because it does not mean out-of-time, but what is the highest expression of contraste and difference from within his time. But I think, althought I’m not familiar with that, out-of-season sums it up pretty much. Also, this reply used my translation dictionary more that I did in the last 5 years of my life.
3rd, Nietzsche is one of the most allergic toward English people I know of, and by what you are saying about English interprets, it seems that he knew what was awaiting him on the other side of the English Channel. Like if he knew they couldn’t digest him.
I too think that after On the genealogy, he is striked with a sudden stiff return to sobriety. From The birth till The dawn, that’s what I would call his cloud phase until he reaches out to a kind of plateau: The gay science till On the genealogy. And then, a tidal wave of sobriety.
It also applies to your point on knowledge. One got to have brought his ashes to the mountain in order for the rain to wash them down.
As for our joyful quartet of hybristics, I like to think of them as quanta that were needed on the plan of immanence. Fluctuations that culminated into their sight and overwhelmed them; the dionysian dissolution. But I also hold in great respect those whom were antagonist: Kant, Socrates, Occam, etc. But at the end of his life, Deleuze is kind of stucked betwixt and between because he considers Kant as a colleague and a rival. Same for Plato. In the love for wisedom, we’r all friends and rivals.