I think that making that statement is a step toward the dissolution of the cartesian regime in that its claim is that the self ineluctably is not it self in that “it” and “the other” rely on each other, are (is) a yinyang symbol, etc., but I still sense a trace of an isolated ego being presupposed in your analysis. It’s hard to word how. mmm.. Ok: if the other is always incorporated (barring the exceptional sociopath) then there is both a yes and a no (tho prolly a point somewhere between) that is able to be said, therefore it wouldn’t be a virtue of Nietzsche’s to say No, because of course he is “of a noble nature” to a high enough degree to incorporate the other—it’s impossible not to do so, unless one is the aforesaid sociopath. Thus the question is whether Nietzsche (presupposing he’s incorporated the other) has incorporated the other as more other than usual amongst ppl you’ve encountered; the ‘more other’, the more firmly is the Yes said.

I think that making that statement is a step toward the dissolution of the cartesian regime in that its claim is that the self ineluctably is not it self in that “it” and “the other” rely on each other, are (is) a yinyang symbol, etc., but I still sense a trace of an isolated ego being presupposed in your analysis. It’s hard to word how. mmm.. Ok: if the other is always incorporated (barring the exceptional sociopath) then there is both a yes and a no (tho prolly a point somewhere between) that is able to be said, therefore it wouldn’t be a virtue of Nietzsche’s to say No, because of course he is “of a noble nature” to a high enough degree to incorporate the other—it’s impossible not to do so, unless one is the aforesaid sociopath. Thus the question is whether Nietzsche (presupposing he’s incorporated the other) has incorporated the other as more other than usual amongst ppl you’ve encountered; the ‘more other’, the more firmly is the Yes said.

1 note

  1. crematedadolescent posted this