We, Collectively, Are Propagating Insanity
Our society, in answering the question ‘What is Life?’ has chosen to see ‘human being’ as a biological machine; a ‘local system with its own locally-originating, internal-process-driven behaviour’ that interacts with other such biological machines. We have been steadily building this bogus view of ‘What Life is’ into our systems of governance, justice, education and very man other things.
This is crazy. But, as my fellow inquirers who have come to the same or very similar conclusions note, the problem is not in defining ‘what is wrong’ with how we, as a social collective, have been answering the question ‘What is Life?’, but in getting others to consider it, since the path back to sanity (to a sane brotherhood) is through everyone coming to a common understanding on this. And here we have the problem that is often compared to the need to change the tires on a car while your driving it at 80 mph in the flow of the freeway.
Fine, I agree with the fact that we can’t simply go to war against an insane society by polarizing ourselves against our brothers who are still harboring the insanities that we feel we have been able to wrest ourselves from. That is, we are still members of insane society even if we have broken the spell of our insanity.
My point is this, and I say it openly to family, friends, brothers, sisters everyone. We need to ‘start talking sane’ in order assist in our soceity being restored to sanity. I am not saying that many people are not already doing that. But I am saying that it is pretty damn quiet out there so far as ‘voices of sanity’ go. The media is full of reporting on the insanities of sovereign government, Darwinism (and capitalism which incorporated Darwinism), psychiatry etc. and these voices prevail almost without serious critique.
We, collectively, need to talk more openly about the insanity of our society, rather than HAVING OUR SILENCE VALIDATE THE INSANITY OF OUR SOCIETY.
What follows is an essay containing some ‘thinking tools’ which can hopefully contribute to the growth of ‘thinking and talking more sanely’.
* * *
When I read Nietzsche and sees how harsh he is on ‘Darwinists’, he puts me in the same critical mood. How can we be so stupid as to think of ‘life’ as something that resides in certain visible forms and not in the universe in general. Here is where this abstract absolute subject-object split comes into our thinking;
“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?” … “Cause and effect–a dangerous concept so long as one thinks of something that causes and something upon which an effect is produced” —Friedrich Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’.
Nietzsche had the good sense to acknowledge Mach’s principle (before it actually arrived by way of Ernst Mach) and the systems science’s contention that we have to ground analytical inquiry in synthetical inquiry; i.e. ‘out-and-back-in-again’. Yes, of course, ‘space is a participant in physical phenomena’, … none of the absolute-space-framing bullshit!
“Another major influence on Nietzsche was William Rolph who argued against what he perceived as Darwin’s insistence on the primacy of a survival instinct. For Rolph, the primary biological urge was for expansion and not preservation. In commenting on Rolph, Moore writes:
For Rolph denies the existence of an instinct for self-preservation – or at the very least rejects the notion that such a drive represents the principal motivation of animal behavior. Rather, life seeks primarily to expand itself. This elementary proposition is expressed as a law of assimilation, a law operative in both the organic and inorganic world. Growth, Rolph argues, is determined by a process of diffusion, in which endosmosis predominates over exosmosis. (p. 47)
How many examples of this conjugate extrinsic-intrinsic relation do we have see in nature before we accept that it is the general case and that all of this purely one-sided intrinsic ‘acorn-to-oak-tree’ evolution is absolute-space based oversimplification and most often ‘self-delusion’?
As Prigogine observed life happens where chaos meets order, where extrinsic meets intrinsic, where exosmosis meets endosmosis, where the opening of spatial possibility meets the blossoming of creative potentials.
Why do we deny this? In a community where the old carpenter dies, the opening of spatial possibility orchestrates the blossoming of carpenterial potentialities. Sure, the new carpenter can say ‘I decided to become a carpenter’, but what meaning would that have without endosmotic flow of carpenterial juices into the boy which would show themselves in his exosmotic development? The phrase “I decided to become a carpenter” is as much nonsense as Poincaré claimed ‘the earth rotates’ was; i.e. it portrays the action as one-onesided, as if there doesn’t need to be a house to receive the cabinets you make.
Is this not stupid to the extreme? I get that Nietzschean criticality in me every time I think of how we believe in such bullshit. I am not point the finger, we have found the problem and it is us.
Imagine the earth as a wire cage made of lines of latitude and longitude and with the 195 sovereign states all wired into place. Nest, imagine the continuing history of the earth being projected as a ghostly hologram within the fixed wire frame, we would see the ocean basins opening over here and closing over there (termed ‘continental drift’) and as we came up to modern times we could see people moving like ants all over the globe in search of being able to find openings of spatial possibility (endosmosis) that could orchestrate the emergence/blossoming of creative/productive potentials in themselves and their children (exosmosis). But, what’s this? We attribute all of that disturbed global ant-nest activity that flows across hard-wired sovereign state boundaries like rivers and winds and animals birds and insects to, TO THE SOVEREIGN STATES!!!
When the dust-bowl arrives and orchestrates the behaviours of the people to such an obvious extent that it is the largest migration in the history of the US (2.5 million people migrate out of the dustbowl in the decade from 1920 to 1930).
So what do we talk about anyhow? The ‘economies’ of Oklahoma, Kansas, etc. We impute the animation to be the engines of the states. There is no ‘local economy’ in each state other than in a spreadsheet where we list all of the productive activities in the state; e.g.
Civilian labour force
Mining and logging employment
Trade, transportation and utilities
And another one breaking out ‘consumption’, so that we have spreadsheet that we can fill in for each state, always, even if the ‘bigger pattern of activity’ is the people heading west to California, or radiating outward away from the growing dust-bowl.
In spite of global movement of people being the primary dynamic, we start talking about ‘local economies’ on the basis of the imaginary hard-wired ‘states’ as if they are ‘real engines’.
These ‘local economies’ are just spreadsheets, they are not ‘productive engines’. If a state divides in two or if states merge, the spreadsheets are split or joined accordingly. There is not such thing as a ‘local economy’ based on imaginary-line boundaries as in a state. Sure there is an ‘economy’ in the green belt that encircles the dust-bowl and the economy moves outward with the green belt and its communities, but imaginary line bounded ‘states’ don’t have ‘local economies’, they have spreadsheets.
So, people are moving all over the globe pursuit of the opening of spatial possibility that will induce the emergent blossoming of their creative potentialities, and we reduce this endosmotic-exosmotic conjugate evolutionary dynamic to the one-sided ‘engine-of-local-economy dynamics’ of the imaginary-line-bounded sovereign states. “The employment numbers are in and Oklahoma’s economy is on the upswing.”
“What’s that you say, the positive pulse in the economy is associated with the wave of people migrating from Kansas on their way to California, and the fact that they register on Oklahoma’s spreadsheet doesn’t reflect some sort of growth in the local Oklahoman team’s productivity?”.
Clearly, these ‘spreadsheets’ called ‘the local economy’ ‘light up’ when anything moves across it, and the primary pattern is global migration as orchestrated by the dynamics of the global living space. The movement of people and goods in the web of veins and arteries that cover the globe as associates with the conjugate endosmosis-exosmosis relation (where regular order as in the blossoming of assertive potentiality meets the irregular chaotic opening of spatial possibility) is the primary understanding of the dynamic, while the waxing and waning of the 195 spreadsheets superimposed over the inherently global dynamics, referred to as ‘national economy’ or ‘state economy’ cannot be imputed to be the varying ‘strength’ of some kind of local ‘teamwork’ or ‘economic engine’.
But that’s one way to notionally reduce a conjugate extrinsic-intrinsic relational phenomena to a one-sided Darwinian evolution; i.e. reduce the ‘organism’ to a spreadsheet, an inventory of inputs and outputs without paying any attention to the more global patterns associated with conjugate endosmotic-exosmotic relational dynamics that the ‘spreadsheets’ are superimposed over.
Now we have the absurd view that the ‘local economies’ are the drivers of the evolution and that they are each in competition and their performance can be traced down and in (analytically) and explained by the performance of the part(icipant)s in the ‘local economy’.
What kind of bullshit is that? To portray an input-output spreadsheet as a ‘local system’
We try to force the human organism into this same ‘local system’ model when he is obviously included in a spatial dynamic greater than himself that induced his emergence (man belongs to his living space, the living space does not belong to man).
As Nietzsche says; in ‘Against Darwinism’ (in The Will to Power), a deficiency that develops in the parts can be the stimulus for the development of the other parts. A deficiency of thermal energy in the polar parts can be a stimulus for the equatorial parts to develop compensatory support as is the source of the hurricane; “In the same way, a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure which holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself.”. This conjugate endosmotic-exosmotic relational dynamic, this ‘order that lives on the edge of chaos’ is behind Nietzsche’s rejection of Darwinism with its idea that ‘the utility of the part’ is what shapes its evolution; e.g;
“— The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies. What, after all, is “useful”? One must ask “useful in relation to what?” E.g., that which is useful for the long life of the individual might be unfavorable to its strength and splendor; that which preserves the individual might at the same time arrest and halt its evolution. On the other hand, a deficiency, a degeneration, can be of the highest utility in so far as it acts as a stimulant to other organs. In the same way, a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure which holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself.— The individual itself as a struggle between parts (for food, space, etc.): its evolution tied to the victory or predominance of individual parts, to an atrophy, a “becoming an organ” of other parts.
The influence of “external circumstances” is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which utilizes and exploits “external circumstances”— The new forms molded from within are not formed with an end in view; but in the struggle of the parts a new form is not left long to its use, develops itself more and more completely.”
Thus, in Nietzsche’s view, at last, we get the notion that the spatial lack of something induces the development of organization, rather than some God-like end-goal being built into the interior of the local part (no mention of ‘space’ here), which gets encouragement from the ‘usefulness’ it contributes to ‘the struggle for survival’, … a Euclidian view in which everything is positive and one-sidedly emergent, as in the spread-sheet based notion of the ‘local economy’ of the nation/state.
Is it not obvious that the patterns of emigration/migration are orchestrated by the dynamics of the global living space? Is it not obvious that the waxing and waning of the production/consumption spreadsheets corresponding to the space within the imaginary-line boundaries of the 195 sovereign states are ‘secondary’ rather than ‘primary’ dynamics?
There is NO WAY that these spreadsheet dynamics should be interpreted as ‘primary’, implying that the ‘local state economy’ is a ‘local system with its own locally originating, internal process-driven behaviour’.
We take two successive sovereign state spreadsheets purporting to profile ‘the local state economy’ and we impute something ‘local’ as being responsible for the variance, …. a loss or gain of ‘competitiveness’ on the part of the ‘national economy’.
Why should we think that what lies within the imaginary-line-bounded geometric area called the ‘sovereign state’ should be the ‘cause’ of the waxing and waning of its production/consumption ‘local economy’ spreadsheet?
“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?”
Here we have the foundational core of Darwinism. We forget about spatial relations and impute intention to ‘spreadsheets’, to a ‘local inventory of parts’ to lend pseudo-understanding to the waxing and waning of the dynamic of this ‘inventory of parts’ as easily as we impute intention to waxing and waning of the ‘storm cell’. Here comes the ‘doer-and-deed’, the ‘Katrina that wreaks destruction on New Orleans’ and there goes the reality that something missing (a deficiency of pressure) induces new organization;
“… a deficiency, a degeneration, can be of the highest utility in so far as it acts as a stimulant to other organs. In the same way, a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure which holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself.— The individual itself as a struggle between parts (for food, space, etc.): its evolution tied to the victory or predominance of individual parts, to an atrophy, a “becoming an organ” of other parts.” (Das Individuum selbst als Kampf der Teile (um Nahrung, Raum usw.): seine Entwicklung geknüpft an ein Siegen, Vorherrschen einzelner Teile, an ein Verkümmern, “Organ-werden” anderer Teile.)
In the unfolding development of a human embryo, or as in the unfolding development of a community, when we compare the ‘parts’ in the earlier form to the parts in the latter form, we see three things (a) old parts that have either grown larger, smaller or changed in shape (b) the absences of old parts that are no longer there, and (c) new parts which were not at all evident in the old form. If we participate in a complex operation/organization over a long period of time, we experience this same type of ‘metamorphosis’ induced by the dynamics of the host space; i.e. some (de)part(ment)s shrink, some expand, some are done away with and some new ones are created. The atrophying or ‘dying (de)part(ment)s’ are an important part of this evolution.; i.e. as a department atrophies, it induces transformation in the others that seek to take over its activities. If a member of a family dies, other family members step in to cover those activities (care for aging parents etc.) that the departing member was covering. Thus the departure induces transformation of the other parts. The ‘family’ can thus be seen as an evolving organization that lives on the balancing edge of trying to keep everything together without dissipating/squandering itself.
But the ‘starting point’ is even beyond family. It is in the dynamic balance between the family and the land, in the daily and seasonal patterns of supply on the part of nature and consumption on the part of the community. Once it actualizes, balance in this conjugate endosmotic-exosmotic relation is something very real and worthy of being sustained. It is like the extrinsic-intrinsic resonance in the flight of the wildgeese that orchestrates their organizing into a ‘V’ formation. Who amongst us has never felt the spontaneous urge to ‘fill in’, perhaps for a brother or team member or community member that has been injured, is ill, or has died? In this SITUATION, one is most definitely permeated by the feeling that “the show must go on” and that one is stepping up and into something in order to support its continuance, and letting the situation shape one’s behaviour and bring into blossom creative/productive potentialities of a type determined as much from the outside-in [endosmotic] as from the inside-out [exosmotic].
* * * Personal Note * * *
Here, for the life of me, I do not understand why the point is not made by philosophers or psychologists, that the tangibility of this ‘something’ that we seek to sustain IS REAL AND PHYSICAL and not simply a ‘notion’ in our heads. It is as real as the resonant relation between the air turbulence the wildgeese are helping to stir and its organizing influence on their individual and collective behaviour, the beating of their wings and their positioning within the ‘sweetspots’ that form in the slipstream. It is OBVIOUS to me that what drives the ‘reality’ out of this call to take our place in the spatial-relational dynamic scheme of things and condemns it to the intellectual status of ‘intention’, is our habit of framing things in absolute space. Only in absolute Euclidian space are we constrained to understand the dynamics of a group as being driven from out of the interiors of the individuals in the group. Only in absolute fixed and empty Euclidian space are we forced to see the participants in a group as ‘local systems with their own locally-originating, intellect and intention-driven behaviours that interact within the fixed and empty spatial theatre of operations. If we suspend our imposing of absolute space, this ‘something’ that call to us to take our place in it, which opens a niche to us that inductively transforms our behaviour and brings new creative/productive potentialities into blossom, can be understood as real and physical, rather than being understood as ‘internal intention’ that results from our intellectual analysis as to ‘what needs to be done’. If one doesn’t step up to the plate and pump out the bilge when the bilge-pumper is injured then the ship sinks. ‘Keeping things afloat’ is something physically tangible like the resonances in the flight of the wildgeese. The dynamics of space ARE PHYSICALLY REAL AND TANGIBLE, as with the flow of the atmosphere that engenders storm-cells and orchestrates their movements, and as with the flow of the air that engenders the ‘V” organization of the geese and orchestrates their movements, and as with the sub-group within the crowd that is engendered by the relative movements of the others, the shape of the hole in the crowd and the shape of the sub-group ARE IN CONJUGATE ENDOSMOTIC-EXOSMOTIC RELATION and can be easily understood as being such … IF …. WE SEE THIS HAPPENING IN [NON-EUCLIDIAN] SPACE; E.G. IN THE SPACE ON THE SURFACE OF A SPHERE (think of ants within a crowd of ants that wraps over and around the surface of a featureless sphere, their relative movements interpermeating themselves as is the way of crowd dynamics). If, on the other hand, we insist on imposing absolute Euclidian space on our understanding on what is actually going on, …. AND NO, DON’T LET YOUR MIND PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T THIS, BECAUSE YOU DO IT; WE ALL DO IT BECAUSE OUR CULTURE IS ADDICTED TO DOING IT, AND EVERY TIME WE REDUCE DYNAMICS TO THE DYNAMICS OF LOCAL OBJECTS/SYSTEMS/ORGANISMS AS IF THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LOCALLY-ORIGINATING, INTERNAL PROCESS-DRIVEN BEHAVIOURS THAT [NOTIONALLY] EXPLAIN THEIR INTERACTIONS AS IF IN AN ABSOLUTE FIXED AND EMPTY OPERATING THEATRE, we are indeed imposing the Euclidian space reference frame on our experience to come up with this sort of ‘disconnected’ understanding of dynamics. So this personal note is a reminder that we do NOT need to impose a constraining absolute space reference frame on our experience, and if we do not, this thing we are keeping afloat when someone ‘goes under’ (herunterschraubt) can be understood as inducing the emergence of new being as in Nietzsche’s statement;
“What, after all, is “useful”? One must ask “useful in relation to what?” E.g., that which is useful for the long life of the individual might be unfavorable to its strength and splendor; that which preserves the individual might at the same time arrest and halt its evolution. On the other hand, a deficiency, a degeneration, can be of the highest utility in so far as it acts as a stimulant to other organs. In the same way, a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure which holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself [“Ebenso kann eine Notlage Existencebedingung sein, insofern sie eine Individuum auf das Maß HERUNTERSCHRAUBT, bei dem es zusammenhält und sich nicht vergeudet.”].— The individual itself as a struggle between parts (for food, space, etc.): its evolution tied to the victory or predominance of individual parts, to an atrophy, a “becoming an organ” of other parts.”
This conjugate dynamic that equivalences “an individual to that measure of expenditure which holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself” is this conjugate endosmosis-exosmosis relation associated with cell-building is Nietzsche’s version of ‘the local system’ (the storm-cell, the human being, the cell etc.) that is eminently possible/plausible as a physical reality in the space of our experience (non-Euclidian space). Furthermore, the evolutionary dynamic inbuilt into this conjugate endosmotic-exosmotic relational dynamic is what he calls ‘THE WILL TO POWER’.
This is the familiar feeling of ‘living on the edge’ of ‘chaos and order’ which seems to characterize evolution of the universe and all of nature, as has been described by Prigogine and others. We experience this evolutionary force in terms of transcending who we are in filling the shoes that open up in some greater dynamic. The notion is that we shall ‘grow into something bigger’ than we already are, not by a simple inside-outward intentional pushing, but by this conjugate extrinsic-intrinsic dynamic relation.
So, let us please not continue to be hung up by the constraints that derive from our habitual imposing of absolute Euclidian space that prevents this view of Nietzsche’s and Prigogines from HAVING ANY REAL PHYSICAL MEANING.
‘Space is not Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ’empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.”…”Relativity forces us to analyze the role played by geometry in the description of the physical world.” . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Einstein.
“Space is another framework we impose upon the world” . . . ” . . . here the mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature.” . . . “Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.” . . . “the space revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry.” . . . Henri Poincaré, ’Science and Hypothesis’.”]]
* * * end of Personal Note * * *
What’s stopping us here is NOT science (science allows us to go beyond the constraints that come bundled in with the imposing of absolute Euclidian space), but culture, as Nietzsche also pointed out with his reference to “damnable Anglomania” It is ‘culture’ that insists on having us reduce our experience by the imposing of absolute Euclidian space so that we are forced to understand ‘local dynamic forms’ (cells, human beings, hurricanes) as ‘local systems with their own locally-originating, internal process-driven behaviours’ that interact in an absolute fixed and empty operating theatre (Euclidian space). WE CONSTRAIN OURSELVES TO THIS VIEW BY CULTURE, NOT BY SCIENCE.
“What did Darwin represent for [Nietzsche]? In a word, he believes Darwinism fatally misconstrues the essence of life (and of human being in particular), and this is because it is imbued with false values propagated by the “damnable Anglomania” that has come to dominate modern culture. Nietzsche’s own conception of life and of the processes that shape it – which ultimately finds expression in the concept of the will to power – is an alternative to that underpinning Darwinism. Nietzsche’s long campaign against Darwin, then, is both a critique of the dominant view of nature and of the culture in which it originated.”
“Nietzsche locates the primary motor of evolution in an active creative force inherent in nature itself: “The influence of ‘external circumstances is exaggerated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the vital process is precisely the tremendous shaping force which creates forms from within and which utilizes, exploits the ‘external circumstances’” This force, of course, is what Nietzsche calls the “will to power.” Nor is Nature frugal, as Darwin supposed: organisms do not fight amongst themselves for scraps of food like guttersnipes of the urban proletariat – here Nietzsche claims to catch the whiff of the musty air of English overcrowding” wafting around Darwin’s theory. Anyway, in such an unseemly struggle, it is not the fittest, the strongest, the remarkable individuals who prevail, but the rabble, the herd, the weak – through sheer weight of numbers.”
“’In Human, All Too Human’ Nietzsche also shows the first signs of developing his own ideas about the mechanisms and processes of evolution. This is most clearly seen in the aphorism entitled “Ennoblement through Degeneration”. Interestingly, the preparatory notes for this passage, written in 1875, appear under the rubric “On Darwinism”: Indeed, Nietzsche’s theory of “ennoblement through degeneration” is explicitly conceived as an anti-Darwinian theory of (social) evolution and represents his first extended meditation on the topic of Darwinism. The “celebrated struggle for existence.” … is consequently dismissed as a “philosophy for butcher boys” and is anyway “not the most important principle”. There are, he claims, other ways of explaining the evolution of both race and individual. According to Nietzsche, the strongest and most healthy organisms, upon whom Darwin supposedly lays such emphasis, only preserve the “type.” It is through the weak that evolution actually takes place: “Degenerate natures are of the highest significance wherever progress is to be effected. Every progress of the whole has be preceded by a partial weakening. Evolution takes place through a dialectical process [conjugate endosmotic-exosmotic relation] of augmentation and consolidation of the “stabilizing force” within a community, which is then partially undermined and weakened by the appearance of certain pathological individuals – Nietzsche is again thinking of the genius here – without whom the community would stagnate. The community has to be robust enough to tolerate this influx of infirmity, this temporary “loosening”: and the health of the social organism, like that of the individual organism, can be measured by its capacity to assimilate degenerate elements.”
Now, Nietzsche not only supported evolution, but felt that it had already been postulated well in advance of Darwin and that it was misplaced attribution to credit Darwin with it, … Nietzsche’s problem was not with evolution but with the essential nature of being as was assumed by Darwin as exosmotic being in precedence over endosmotic, while Nietzsche saw the essence of being in terms of endosmosis being in precedence over exosmosis, a notion that requires one to think of ‘space’ as a participant in physical phenomena, an understanding that implies that ‘man belongs to the earth’, ‘the earth does not belong to man’.
With this change in the most basic underpinnings of our worldview, everything changes, our notions of morality, the source of our power, our understanding of order and organization (which in turn impacts our views on politics and governance.
Nietzsche’s ‘the will to power’, which is his term for ‘the evolutionary force’ is NOT to be confused with ‘power’ in a local physical sense (there is nothing ‘local’ in nature). The ‘powerboaters’ of our ‘Anglomaniac’ culture understand power in the sense of that which comes from the inside of a man, or nation, or organism, seen as a ‘local system with its own locally-originating, internal power-driven behaviour, the ‘Euclidian space view’ as has been discussed. The ‘will to power’ is that which is felt by the sailboater who pushes off into the heart of the storm who becomes a vent through which the storm can express itself, giving him power and steerage to the extent that he can handle it without becoming ‘unravelled’, the very essence of life in Nietzsche’s terms; “a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure which holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself “(“Ebenso kann eine Notlage Existencebedingung sein, insofern sie eine Individuum auf das Maß herunterschraubt, bei dem es zusammenhält und sich nicht vergeudet.”). The message is clearly that this conjugate relation itself, this ‘plight’ (Notlage) we are in where order-meets-chaos, this endosmotic-exosmotic relation, is ‘being’ (‘being’ that is in a continual condition of ‘becoming’), the essence of ‘life’, or ‘human being’ where THE WILL DOES NOT SPRING FORTH ONE-SIDEDLY FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE ‘BEING”, but is the will to deal with the continually born chaos of the situation we are included in, which challenges the currently established order within us that his holding us together. The ‘POWER’ is the power of universe in its ceaseless, innovative unfolding, and the WILL TO POWER is the desire to let one’s being transcend one’s being by stepping in ON BEHALF OF ORDER TO SUSTAIN ORDER, as the old order expires and falls into the recycling flow. The verb ‘herunterschrauben’ would literally translate as a descending screwing action, the decline of the old Gyre, the unloading of the old springs that charge the new springs in the elastic (resonant-energy-charged) space of relativity and quantum physics.
As the older generation ‘unwinds’ in its decline, it ‘winds up’ the rising generation. Societies are something more than the generations of incumbent human beings that are moved about within them. The WILL TO POWER is something more than could ever be hatched by ‘first cause’ in the interior of a self-declared ‘local system’ whose behaviour we say is driven from the inside by ‘intellect-and-intention’:
“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?” … “Cause and effect–a dangerous concept so long as one thinks of something that causes and something upon which an effect is produced” —Friedrich Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’. .
Whether ‘Anglomania’ is an appropriate term for the reduction in our powers of understanding that our global society has been afflicted with, or some other term such as Euclidomania or perhaps more accurately ‘egomania’ since it is referring to this flip from understanding that ‘man belongs to the earth’ to ‘the earth belongs to man’, the dysfunction that is on the rise in our society clearly related to it, and it is time to seriously and publicly revisit Darwinism, evolutionary biology and the many things that have insane Darwinist view of ‘What is Life’ built into their foundations so that they play a key role in keeping us in the Euclidian ruts, which, like car-tire ruts left in the mud as we move over and around the circumference of the earth, seem never to touch, until they touch themselves. A kind of wakeup call that dispels the one-sided (de-situationalized), intrinsically-sourced view of dynamics and the one-sided exosmotic view of the power of human being.
* * *