Nietzsche and a coffee shop

I've been reading Nietzsche's "Beyond good and evil", and many

thoughts, and questions arise. Nietzsche writes of "weak" and "strong"

wills, and mankind's natural will to power.

Is this "will to power" separate from ego-based pursuits? I cannot

help but feel that this will to power is driven by the ego's drive to

become, to dominate, to be the best.

Yes.

The concept of power, as a means to achieve..whatever.......and is thus to be had/grabbed/accumulated/hoarded...
....and further to be defended.....against attacks causing depletion.....

...rests on  the bedrock of the concept......that there is an entity either bereft of  the power, hence feels the need of it.......or has the power and feels the need to defend the possession.

History may have umpteen examples which evidently prove such is the case.

But history is not separate to this display of what it would be like................IF...........something could be.

Having said that......this display in order to be complete.......has to have powerful characters who appear to achieve substantial goals.

Just like the battle you won singlehandedly........against monumental odds......
..showing great prowess, skills, ruthlessness, acumen, farsightedness.......et al.

In your last night sleep dream drama.



 

I thought I had so many questions in beginning this e-mail, but so

many of them dissolved after being put to type.

:-)
Attention dissolves what is focused upon.

 Maybe it was just

frustrating trying to reconcile Neitzsche with...I'm not sure with

what..I think the "lump-in-the-throat-" frustration also comes from

Nietzsche's glorification of the will to power, and the "free-spirit"

who is destined for greatness. This book was kind-of a slap in the

face compared to the soothing writings of J. Krishnamurti.

Yes.

Why should you reconcile?

The richness of this display of what it be .......if.....something could be....

....lies in the infinite vistas of thought.

Thought produced an object like Neitzsche(and through that object......the secondary stream of thoughts, aka his philosophy).....

.....and thought also produced the Nazis which corrupted Neitzsche's prattlings to get their justification to propound the theory of the superior race and all that baloney.

Thought produces a Mandela and a George W Bush....

....a Obama.........and the Republicans who are screaming that the Nobel Prize award to Obama is a conspiracy of the liberals.

Thought produced a JK, a UG, a Nisargadatta...a Wei Wu Wei....

...and also produced a Ghengis Khan and a Hitler and a Stalin.


Thought has neither remorse, nor malice.

Even though remorse and malice....as durational feelings.....is nothing but the hoopla of thought.

Today, I was at a coffee shop and watched a car bump into the car in

front of it. Both men got out, the one whose car was hit was with a

woman (lets say wife-she also came out). They both looked and didn't

see much damage, but the decision about what to do next obviously

depended on the man whose car was hit. Watching from the window, I saw

the man whose car was hit pause for a moment, while they both were

"thinking" then stuck out his hand to the other man - a gesture that

basically means, "we're good, don't worry about it". The other man

didn't see the hand come up, and there was a painful 4-5 seconds of

the man with his hand out. I watched his embarrassed expression while

his fingers slowly curled and moved away. In the nick of time, the

other man saw it and shook his hand.

This seems like the most trivial, insignificant event, but it struck a

chord and brought with it many questions. Would a "man of

understanding", would a Krishnamurti, would an Osho, feel this sense

of embarrassment, of vulnerability?

No.

Because........even though "a" behaviour may get exhibited, since there is an "alive" object in question....
.....there is no "other".

There being no "other"......the question of expectation of a particular type of response from this "no-other".....

....is moot.

Thus both praise and ridicule is neither rejected nor craved for.

Both are seen as uttered sounds and like dew drops sliding down a clean window pane......

....no mudspot gets created on the window pane.....because there is not a single mote of dust on the window pane.

 Such a feeling is quite

unpleasant, but does that mean that it should be avoided?

Both the pursuit and the avoidance.......indicates identification, indicates a stake, isn't it?.

A stake requires a stake holder.

Who is that stake holder.........for whom either pursuit or avoidance..... is of significance?



But to avoid

such vulnerability by not being so open to others is simple aversion,

no?

Yes.

Openness....which is conditional.........is not openness.

Openness....is open to dew drops landing on a clean glass window pane.

As well as a brick.

 It is still placing much value to the emotional security?

Indeed.

The quest of security emotional or otherwise......is the very insecurity.

So long the quest......so long the persistence of the insecurity.

 At the

coffee shop, I immediately asked myself whether it is better to be

secure and avoid such vulnerable moments when relating to others, or

whether it was better to embrace the uncertainty.

For whom is security(whatever be the definition of this sense of security)........an issue of relevance?

For whom is uncertainty(whatever be the definition of this sense of uncertainty)........an issue of relevance?

That such and such living is secured living........and that such and such  is uncertain/vulnerable/in-secured living....

.....are all play of thought, is it not?

The quest to move from one to another and vice versa.......is again play of thought...

...nuances of this display of what would it be like.....IF.......something could ever be.

 

 But then I thought

that either one of those would be living according to a static, dead,

principal- to a belief. I'm left with no answer with regards to what

one "ought to do", because there is no "ought to", there is only what

one does.

Indeed.

Thus spontaneity.

The reaction that took place as thought.........the decision which got invoked by the primary reaction as thought.......the decision being again a thought.....

...the maybe external actualization of this decision-thought.......aka as an action...series of actions constituting behaviour....

....and the consequential reactions, response, results..of exhibited beahviour......

...which again impact to create a further reaction.........thus the cycle once again.......

......are all happenings in spontaneity.

There is no reasoned-out-in-time... events.

The moment is the culminated picture of an infinite number of events.....making up the moment......

.....all occurring in spontaneity.....

....including the seemingly rock steady belief........that such and such was an effect of such and such cause.

There is no linear cause-effect continuum..........this display of what would it be like, if something could ever be..........is holographic spontaneity ...

....which no doubt contains  the very feeling of a linear cause-effect continuum.


And D......if everything is spontaneous.......can anything be spontaneous?

The apperception of spontaneity .......is the end of the concept of spontaneity.


ROFL.