Gottfried & Blicero

[Paul Mackin]

You wouldn't say however that one can't have accepted the
essential position of  Nietzsche and still see the "need to be good to
each other." Not based on any philosophical reasoning, perhaps totally
without foundation, but practically necessary. We're probably both
Nietzschites (as I suspect are most p-listers) but we need to be good to
each other. Even Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, the ultimate ubermenshen, had
families and friends.

			P.





On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, MichaelB wrote:

> 
> Well, whether Pynchon would agree with the distinction you make here
> below, and whether you are right about it or not, Nietzsche would
> most certainly disagree.  Zarathustra did not speak to writers (he
> did certainly, but precisely to criticize their false value of That
> distinction of words/action), his goal was not to teach writers, but
> to teach man--everybody (who is capable, who has the ears to hear
> him).  To say that creating and destroying in the realm of art is
> something that we may all jolly well do but that in society we must
> all be 'good' to one another is absolutely that essential Christian
> reason d'etre permeating 2000 years of European morality that
> Nietzsche spent his life overcoming, destroying, revaluating.  What,
> really, are the grounds for us, for that insidious Necessity, that
> Ought, that Do or Pay the Consequences, of being 'good' to one
> another?  If such a question, if such a notion sounds utterly
> pathetic and sick to you (and even impossible!), then I believe
> Nietzsche would go so far as to suggest you haven't even realized the
> basic Groundwork to the ubermensch (that creature which merly
> revaluates existing tables of values), that understanding of the
> ultimate untenability of all arguments For necessity, for a thing in
> itself, for metaphysics (of morals, etc.), that understanding that is
> in itself(!) that which he christened with the term beyond good and
> evil.  One cannot begin to revaluate if one hasn't first determined
> that such valuations are not only possible but in themselves of equal
> value (though certainly not equal in their valuations).
> 
> You are right, any retard can Write 'beyond good and evil'.  Who
> amongst us has the Stength to create values where our fellow men are
> concerned?  To say yes, to say no: to claim for yourself (and for
> humanity, though not in the sense of a categorical imperative) what
> is good and bad.  Nietzsche had nothing but contempt for those
> writers who did not value in society what they taught in their art. 
> As an example, take the current topic (if I follow it correctly) of
> the homo(phobic/sexual) aspect of the Rainbow.  Let's assume we are
> right that Pynchon the writer, in the text, is carelessly, joyfully
> tossing about events that to many readers seem homophobic, anti-gay,
> whatever.  If Pynchon the man, in society, were to say very carefully
> 'I am not in the least bit homophobic, I respect all people
> irregardless of their sexual "preferences"', then that attitude would
> contract the beyond good and evil Dance of his written words, and he
> would fail in Nietzsche's sense to be, yes, an ubermensh.  But if
> Pynchon, laughing joyously at the nothingness he is faced with As
> society, speaks in the same 'tone' of his texts, then he has
> succeeded in revaluating existing values--that, in this example, gay
> men should not necessarily be treated with equal benevolensce and
> care as straight men.  What could it possibly matter otherwise...? 
> --What I've written hear is Nietzsche, but if one listens
> appropriately to the nothingness it appears rather false to make any
> contradictory claims.
> 
> m
> 
> 
> --- Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Sounds right to me. P as creator and destroyer--as
> > writer--qualifies
> > as an Ubermensch. P as father, husband, son, brother, and citizen
> > does not. This applies to all of us I would say. We operate in two
> > worlds. In the world of thought and art we can be--if we want-- 
> > Supermen--beyond good and evil in a sense. Yet when we enter that
> > realm
> > of dealing with fellow humans we need to be GOOD to each other. One
> > of the
> > basic ambiguities of life.
> > 
> > 				P.  
> > 
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, MichaelB wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > In answering the question of Pynchon's being beyond good and
> > evil,
> > > you say he doesn't see himself as an ubermensch. --But I don't
> > think
> > > that an ubermensch, in Nietzsche's sense, is one that is merely
> > > beyond good and evil.  One must certainly be beyond good and
> > evil,
> > > but that awareness is the necessary groundwork for what the
> > > ubermensch primarily does: revaluates old tables of values, or
> > > better, revaluates existing tables of values.  To be merely
> > beyond
> > > good and evil but to fail to create new values in the nothingness
> > > that resides 'beyond good and evil' is to further that aspect of
> > > modernity that the ubermensch overcomes--nihilism.  I obviously
> > am
> > > none too swift in my knowledge of Pynchon, but I would guess that
> > in
> > > this sense--in recognizing the nothingness that permeates
> > > 'reality'--he is certainly beyond good and evil.  The question
> > would
> > > be, then, does Pynchon create, and continue to create, ever new
> > > tables of values.  Has Pynchon overcome the nothingness?  I for
> > one,
> > > am unabashed about admitting I have not yet been able to grasp
> > that
> > > most crucial overcoming, that essential creating.
> > > 
> > > m
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Dave Monroe wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So you guys ARENT going to answer my questions?  Jeez, I hope
> > you
> > > > two aren't in
> > > > > the business.  Won't answer questions from the class, which
> > you
> > > > run anyway like
> > > > > it's the McLaughlin Group or something ("Wrong!").  You'd
> > make
> > > > lousy professors
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The questions I could decern are, is Pynchon beyond good and
> > evil, 
> > > > and why is it important they both be men tonight. Let me give
> > quick
> > > > off the top of my head answers and think about it some more.
> > > > 
> > > > No, P does not see himself as an Ubermensch. However he must
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > forces that drive the planet as beyond good and evil.
> > > > 
> > > > I read "important they both be men" to mean that at this
> > critical
> > > > point Blicero does not wish to use Gottfried for a girl (image
> > him
> > > > as a
> > > > girl or woman), the implication being that at other times such
> > > > might be
> > > > the case. Perhaps the seriousness and finality of the present
> > > > occasion
> > > > require that Gottfried be allowed his true biological male
> > > > identity. Also
> > > > it will accommodate a father/son relation. But I'm no sexpert.
> > > > 
> > > > 				P.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > > http://im.yahoo.com/
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>