Ilana's Journal Week 5: Friedrich Nietzsche On Many Things [ Edited ]

[IlanaSimons]

Thank you for this thoughtful reply to the original Nietzsche post, Kathy.

You wrote: "The first thing I saw [in the post] were the single words...Chaos...[the] tension [we might need] for deeper lives. [The] drama [needed for a life that's] meaningful, worth living... [These are] words I avoid identifying with, (not realizing them until now). I've always looked for calm in my life. Or maybe it was just order that was needed."

I understand a lot of what you're saying here. I think when we're stuck living with some chaos in our lives, we feel like we just want order--no drama. When things are flatline, I do think we tend to create drama. We might not be conscious of how the two interplay at the time.

You also wrote about ego: "'Egoism.' This word threw me... ' The ego is said to be reality oriented [but] am I thinking logically or illogically when creating art? ...Is creativity selfless or selfish?"

When I wrote that Nietzsche was an egoist and embraced that part of himself, I meant that he valued the part of the mind that seeks to dominate, to leave its mark on the world, to create something that others look at and remember. He called that part of the ego a creative and strong part of our make-up.
He also knew that while he worked with such deep intention at a goal--at his art and philosophy--he was not fully conscious of his "dance," as he said. People would look on and notice elements he was not aware he was doing. It takes some surrender of the ego to admit that there’s a part of your dance that you do but do not understand as others understand it.

Message Edited by IlanaSimons on 06-27-2007 03:41 PM

[Choisya]

No I don't write them down Melissa and folks are always saying that. I am a poor writer - too used to reports, statistics, speeches etc to do anything creative with words.

---

pedsphleb wrote:
Choisya - Please tell me you have all these anecdotes written down and saved somewhere! You always post about the things you've done and the people you met - you could write a book

---

Choisya wrote:
I don't know where to post this but thought I could put it at the end of the Nietzshe thread. Perhaps KathyS will say it is egotistical of me to post it but I thought it would interest one or two folks here:-

I had an exciting day in London today, watching our exiting Prime Minister, Tony Blair, say his farewells to the House of Commons (Hooray!) and seeing our new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, enter Downing Street (Bigger Hooray!!).

You may like to know that I knew GB quite well when he first came into the HoC and tipped him to be our future leader because of his superb performances in the Commons from the outset. I shared an office with his brother Andy, who was his assistant, for nearly a year and I got my younger daughter a job teaching him how to use a Wang computer - he has been an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years so she did a good job.

Gordon is a Scot, 'son of the manse' with a Presbyterian background and was educated at his local state school. He was so clever that he went to senior school when he was 10, sat his Highers when he was 14 - two years early - and went to Edinburgh University to study history when he was 16, gaining a PhD when he was 21. He is possibly the cleverest Prime Minister Britain has ever had. He is well read in history and the classics and has written a couple of political biographies. He lost the sight of one eye as a student, after being injured in a rugby match, prior to that he was a talented rugby and tennis player. He is often called 'dour' but he isn't - he is just serious minded and committed to what he does - he 'cares' and is very idealistic. He has an excellent sense of humour and is great fun to be with, as is his wife, Sarah, a PR consultant. They have two young sons. They are very different to the Blairs, much less fond of the 'high life'.

Next week I have another meeting with the Great and the Good (I am the Bad) at the HoC where I hope to meet some members of the newly appointed Cabinet. I hope everything eventually comes up to my expectations - one of which is an early exit from Iraq!

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-27-2007 01:54 PM

---

---

[IlanaSimons]

Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

I like what you say about sitting still: A major step to building a bridge between two heads is turning off your own internal judgment/chatter/assessment and just sitting still with the other person's words.

You also wrote about the difference between online and face-to-face friendships, saying it's much harder to establish clear connection here, online, than face-to-face. How, how true.

---

KathyS wrote:
...Keeping still, and listening is probably one of the most difficult things to learn, in any relationship, but first learned through honest conversations. But to NOT want to see everything, I don't agree with. I see that the more you learn about each other, friendships will only grow stronger because of this. But respect for another persons privacy is particularly important.

---

[KathyS]

When I mentioned online friends, I want to make it clear that I don't consider the general population of these people I meet on these discussion groups as friends. Aquaintances only. I may know many of these people, some for a few years, or through email. But what I learn from them, about their personal lives through these boards doesn't make them my friends. What takes place, the interaction off the boards, how it's perpetuated, that's when you learn about that person. It's a "real" exchange of words then.

We all disclose certain things about ourselves, here, but the truth of a relationship takes place over a long period of time, off of these boards, away from this rarefied atmostphere. That's when I see friendships can develope.

But just the fact that you're writing back and forth to someone, doesn't automatically put that person into the fiendship catagory, at least for me. Friendships have to mean something to me. You have to be able to show that vulnerable side to that other person. Trust is the issue. This is the difficult part when you can't see the look on that other person's face. Reading a face is half of what you hear. I do tend to write what I'm feeling, but deep feelings to only someone I can trust. These boards are read anyone and everyone, all over the world - and I'm aware of that.

Kathy S.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

I like what you say about sitting still: A major step to building a bridge between two heads is turning off your own internal judgment/chatter/assessment and just sitting still with the other person's words.

You also wrote about the difference between online and face-to-face friendships, saying it's much harder to establish clear connection here, online, than face-to-face. How, how true.

---

KathyS wrote:
...Keeping still, and listening is probably one of the most difficult things to learn, in any relationship, but first learned through honest conversations. But to NOT want to see everything, I don't agree with. I see that the more you learn about each other, friendships will only grow stronger because of this. But respect for another persons privacy is particularly important.

---

---

[Choisya]

I agree to an extent with your definition of friends KathyS and don't think these boards are conducive to making close friends because we do not reveal enough of ourselves (and can be easily misunderstood). However, over a ten year period I have made several close cyber-friends who I feel I know as well as 'real' ones. If you communicate on an almost daily basis, through 'thick and thin', I think you can get to know people well, just as people used to do by correspondence in the old days. There are quite a few instances of close friendships formed by correspondence, particularly between authors, who perhaps express their feelings better. I also exchange a lot of emailed photographs and I think this helps to get to know people. But nothing, of course, beats physical contact, the sight of a familiar face, a real smile etc.

---

KathyS wrote:
When I mentioned online friends, I want to make it clear that I don't consider the general population of these people I meet on these discussion groups as friends. Aquaintances only. I may know many of these people, some for a few years, or through email. But what I learn from them, about their personal lives through these boards doesn't make them my friends. What takes place, the interaction off the boards, how it's perpetuated, that's when you learn about that person. It's a "real" exchange of words then.

We all disclose certain things about ourselves, here, but the truth of a relationship takes place over a long period of time, off of these boards, away from this rarefied atmostphere. That's when I see friendships can develope.

But just the fact that you're writing back and forth to someone, doesn't automatically put that person into the fiendship catagory, at least for me. Friendships have to mean something to me. You have to be able to show that vulnerable side to that other person. Trust is the issue. This is the difficult part when you can't see the look on that other person's face. Reading a face is half of what you hear. I do tend to write what I'm feeling, but deep feelings to only someone I can trust. These boards are read anyone and everyone, all over the world - and I'm aware of that.

Kathy S.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

I like what you say about sitting still: A major step to building a bridge between two heads is turning off your own internal judgment/chatter/assessment and just sitting still with the other person's words.

You also wrote about the difference between online and face-to-face friendships, saying it's much harder to establish clear connection here, online, than face-to-face. How, how true.

---

KathyS wrote:
...Keeping still, and listening is probably one of the most difficult things to learn, in any relationship, but first learned through honest conversations. But to NOT want to see everything, I don't agree with. I see that the more you learn about each other, friendships will only grow stronger because of this. But respect for another persons privacy is particularly important.

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-28-2007 04:40 AM

[KathyS]

Choisya wrote: I agree to an extent with your definition of friends KathyS and don't think these boards are conducive to making close friends because we do not reveal enough of ourselves (and can be easily misunderstood). However, over a ten year period I have made several close cyber-friends who I feel I know as well as 'real' ones. If you communicate on an almost daily basis, through 'thick and thin', I think you can get to know people well, just as people used to do by correspondence in the old days. There are quite a few instances of close friendships formed by correspondence, particularly between authors, who perhaps express their feelings better. I also exchange a lot of emailed photographs and I think this helps to get to know people. But nothing, of course, beats physical contact, the sight of a familiar face, a real smile etc.

_________________________________
Absolutely. I said, "I don't consider the *general population* of these people I meet on these discussion groups as friends". It doesn't mean you *can't* establish them. I have. But it, like you say, requires time and consistency in writing. The desire and the need has to be there, mutually. And it does require the giving of not just thought, but feelings. Otherwise, you've become simply pen pals.

Kathy S.

[KathyS]

These opinions are my own - from my own experiences - but if anyone has something to add, or a different opinion or point of view, please add them. I'd like to hear more.

This is in reference to all types of friendships, whether face to face, or through writing alone.

Going into friendships/relationships, and establishing them with the expectation that you will understand and like everything about them, is unrealistic. With this thought in mind, we see that some of us have many friends, and some of us have very few friends. There is a reason for this. We all have different needs and desires for wanting to create these relationships. Friends should come in all categories of interests as they relate to ours. As mentioned, we can't expect to know everyone on the same level.

I believe that there are people who think that all of their friends should be exactly like them. With the attitude, 'the more you have in common, the less there is to argue about'. Having someone exactly like you, rarely happens, if at all. To base a friendship on this attitude is not, again, realistic.

Having a variety of friends, with a variety of interests, gives us the opportunity to relate to each of them in a special way. If you love either music, art, dance, sports, politics etc., you can choose someone of from each of these common interests in which to share these like experiences, each giving into the relationship by sharing these experiences. You can also have groups of friends who come together solely to interject a different dynamic into conversations, learning from each of them, as with these board conversations.

There is nothing better than to have a kindred spirit, a close friendship, but there are times when even the spirit needs rejuvenating. The sameness in all friends can prove stagnant and unsatisfying to the realtionship. I feel that the point to any relationship is to have something to give and bring into it. We can't expect just one person to constantly feed our souls. The resposibility for feeding and nurturing my soul is my responsibility. If I have nothing to give to myself, I have nothing to give back to a friendship. Close friendships/relationships can, and will, die for these reasons.

Kathy S.

[Choisya]

Going into friendships/relationships, and establishing them with the expectation that you will understand and like everything about them, is unrealistic. With this thought in mind, we see that some of us have many friends, and some of us have very few friends.


My best and oldest cyber-friend is as unlike me as could possibly be. So is my best old-school-friend. Others share most of my interests. I don't think the matter of having many friends or few friends is related to expecting friends to be like yourself. It is often related to your actual lifestyle and how much time you have (or want to allocate) for socialising and keeping up with friends, and sometimes it can be because you want to be part of a smaller, more intimate, circle. It can also change throughout your life, according to your circumstances. Mothers at home with with young children tend to have more friends because young children themselves are often very sociable and you have, perforce, to interact with other parents. At work our friendships often get divided between colleague-friends and home-friends, especially if we work some distance from home (as I did). Moving house can also dislocate friendships because visiting becomes more difficult and expensive - I moved from one end of the country to another. Upon retirement it can become more difficult (and more expensive) to keep up with colleague-friends, or you may want to strike out in a different direction and meet new ones.

Having had both a wide circle of friends and a job which required me to socialise, I am now happy with a small circle of friends and socialise mainly with my children and grandchildren - two of my children live hundreds of miles away, as does my best old-school-friend so visiting involves quite a lot of expense which is another problem. Also, as you get older you do not have the same energy for going out and about. So there are a lot of factors which affect the making, keeping and losing of friends, whether you nurture them or not and whether you seek like-minds or not.

---

KathyS wrote:
These opinions are my own - from my own experiences - but if anyone has something to add, or a different opinion or point of view, please add them. I'd like to hear more.

This is in reference to all types of friendships, whether face to face, or through writing alone.

Going into friendships/relationships, and establishing them with the expectation that you will understand and like everything about them, is unrealistic. With this thought in mind, we see that some of us have many friends, and some of us have very few friends. There is a reason for this. We all have different needs and desires for wanting to create these relationships. Friends should come in all categories of interests as they relate to ours. As mentioned, we can't expect to know everyone on the same level.

I believe that there are people who think that all of their friends should be exactly like them. With the attitude, 'the more you have in common, the less there is to argue about'. Having someone exactly like you, rarely happens, if at all. To base a friendship on this attitude is not, again, realistic.

Having a variety of friends, with a variety of interests, gives us the opportunity to relate to each of them in a special way. If you love either music, art, dance, sports, politics etc., you can choose someone of from each of these common interests in which to share these like experiences, each giving into the relationship by sharing these experiences. You can also have groups of friends who come together solely to interject a different dynamic into conversations, learning from each of them, as with these board conversations.

There is nothing better than to have a kindred spirit, a close friendship, but there are times when even the spirit needs rejuvenating. The sameness in all friends can prove stagnant and unsatisfying to the realtionship. I feel that the point to any relationship is to have something to give and bring into it. We can't expect just one person to constantly feed our souls. The resposibility for feeding and nurturing my soul is my responsibility. If I have nothing to give to myself, I have nothing to give back to a friendship. Close friendships/relationships can, and will, die for these reasons.

Kathy S.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-28-2007 03:09 PM

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-28-2007 03:10 PM

[foxycat]

A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg even though you're slightly cracked or scrambled.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

[IlanaSimons]

That's nice.
I recently heard, and really didn't like, this line: "Your husband/wife should be the person who appreciates your accomplishments." My friend revised that sentence in a way I like much more: "Your partner should be the person who appreciates you with your lack of accomplishments."

---

foxycat wrote:
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg even though you're slightly cracked or scrambled.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

---

[Laurel]

A friend is someone who knows all about you but likes you anyway.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
That's nice.
I recently heard, and really didn't like, this line: "Your husband/wife should be the person who appreciates your accomplishments." My friend revised that sentence in a way I like much more: "Your partner should be the person who appreciates you with your lack of accomplishments."

---

foxycat wrote:
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg even though you're slightly cracked or scrambled.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

---

---

[KathyS]

You're right Choisya, there are many factors involved in wanting, acquiring, loosing, changing, and nurturing a friendship. It all revolves around the individual's needs.

[KathyS]

Rochelle? Have you been talking to my friends?

---

foxycat wrote:
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg even though you're slightly cracked or scrambled.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

---

[Peppermill]

Elsewhere I made the post that I have at least one friend who will hand me something to read and sometimes I can only guess that it is because she sees something applicable to my life. She may see things I do not, but I also know she gives me space to decide whether it is applicable or not -- she doesn't need to "see for sure." I wouldn't want all my friends to be like that, but she gives me space, doesn't create burdensome obligations, doesn't need to make wrong guesses or pry, honors my privacy, retains her space. A lot of what Nietzsche says here seems to me about making choices and decisions about boundaries or lack thereof in relationships. At one time, I fought that kind of friendship; today this friend has been one of the key ones to teach me to respect such.

---

foxycat wrote:
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg even though you're slightly cracked or scrambled.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
Good point here, Kathy: That perhaps, as Nietzsche says, one should not expect to understand or like everything about a friend--but to not even want to SEE those things is probably the wrong approach. ...or a sign that the friendship isn't a good one.

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 06-28-2007 04:25 PM

[foxycat]

I think Laurel and I got our aphorisms from the same place.

---

KathyS wrote:
Rochelle? Have you been talking to my friends?

---

foxycat wrote:
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg even though you're slightly cracked or scrambled.

---

[Prof]

After our discussion about reading groups, I looked for and found a milder bunch. I need to read with other book-lovers who are pick-me-ups, not bring-me-downs!

---

Prof wrote:

What a great expression! Yes, my spouse and my parents put me back up on a pedestal when I've been knocked down.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:

I have two partners in my life (mother & lover) who help me sustain delusions of grandeur. And the occassional drink.

---

---

[TonySeb]

Regarding the URL for Citizendium:

www.citizendium.org will work, but the address box then shows http://en.citizendium.org, so the latter seems official, the former some kind of 'redirect'.

Either gets you to Citizendium's main page, which contains a link to join as author (must use a verifiable real name), and for 'experts', a link to join as an editor (need credentials).

Join and contribute.

[Everyman]

Just got the announcement of the St John's college homecoming this fall. Being St. John's, one of the main activities of the weekend are the alumni seminars where we can pretend we can still discuss seriously. I noticed that this year Eva Brann will be leading a seminar on Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense."

It sounds appealing, but not as appealing as Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Other seminars on tap are Antony and Cleopatra, The Tempest, August Wilson's Gem of the Ocean, Wallace Stevens The Idea of Order at Key West, Homer's Odyssey Books IX-XII, Narrative ofthe Life of Frederick Douglas, and Ibesn't The Wild Duck. There are also seminars open only to specific classes, too many to list, but they include Turgenev's Diary of a Superfluous Man, Husserl's Origin of Geometry, Descartes' Discussion on Method, Euripides Bacchae, Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, and others.

Don't you wish your college's homecoming included seminars like these, not to mention the Friday Night lecture, followed by question period, on "Knowledge, Ignorance and Imitation in Book Ten of Plato's Republic, and a waltz party on Saturday night?

[Melissa_W Moderator]

Sounds better than plain-old football and beer (Big Ten school, you know how it goes)

---

Everyman wrote:
Just got the announcement of the St John's college homecoming this fall. Being St. John's, one of the main activities of the weekend are the alumni seminars where we can pretend we can still discuss seriously. I noticed that this year Eva Brann will be leading a seminar on Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense."

It sounds appealing, but not as appealing as Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Other seminars on tap are Antony and Cleopatra, The Tempest, August Wilson's Gem of the Ocean, Wallace Stevens The Idea of Order at Key West, Homer's Odyssey Books IX-XII, Narrative ofthe Life of Frederick Douglas, and Ibesn't The Wild Duck. There are also seminars open only to specific classes, too many to list, but they include Turgenev's Diary of a Superfluous Man, Husserl's Origin of Geometry, Descartes' Discussion on Method, Euripides Bacchae, Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, and others.

Don't you wish your college's homecoming included seminars like these, not to mention the Friday Night lecture, followed by question period, on "Knowledge, Ignorance and Imitation in Book Ten of Plato's Republic, and a waltz party on Saturday night?

---

[Laurel]

But when is the football game? I'll be seeing August Wilson's Gem of the Ocean August 17 at the Ashland Shakespeare Festival, and I don't know a thing about it yet. And we've talked some about the superfluous man in our Pushkin reading. I STILL haven't read Notes from the Underground, but I shall!

---

Everyman wrote:
Just got the announcement of the St John's college homecoming this fall. Being St. John's, one of the main activities of the weekend are the alumni seminars where we can pretend we can still discuss seriously. I noticed that this year Eva Brann will be leading a seminar on Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense."

It sounds appealing, but not as appealing as Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Other seminars on tap are Antony and Cleopatra, The Tempest, August Wilson's Gem of the Ocean, Wallace Stevens The Idea of Order at Key West, Homer's Odyssey Books IX-XII, Narrative ofthe Life of Frederick Douglas, and Ibesn't The Wild Duck. There are also seminars open only to specific classes, too many to list, but they include Turgenev's Diary of a Superfluous Man, Husserl's Origin of Geometry, Descartes' Discussion on Method, Euripides Bacchae, Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, and others.

Don't you wish your college's homecoming included seminars like these, not to mention the Friday Night lecture, followed by question period, on "Knowledge, Ignorance and Imitation in Book Ten of Plato's Republic, and a waltz party on Saturday night?

---