Oh, now I see why Zoroaster catches your attention, or is it rather Nietsche's Zarathustra who was allowed to prosper, setting out to overcome the analysis ot that very dualism who made his name know (yet not too famous) over the centuries.
You're right, Nietzsche's Z is the more relevant figure here... while the original one gave us dualism, Nietzsche's was supposed to overcome it. But... wasn't Nietzsche's allowed to prosper exactly because the system misread him? Ironically, the kind of power-serving velocity I tried to describe.
Marinetti quoted Nietzsche, and so did the people Marinetti aligned with. The whole idea of overcoming dualism became a tool for one side of the dualism. Which might actually be the deeper pattern here. It's not just that certain velocities get funded and others get a weird look. It's that even the frameworks designed to transcend that split get ironically absorbed back into the split itself.
Nietzsche wanted to move beyond good and evil. System said "Cool! let's use that to justify our version of good." (haha). This forces another question... can any framework of transcendence survive actual contact with the algorithm itself? Scary? Unsolvable? Human nature? We'll probably never really know, because we're thinking from inside the thing we're trying to see the outside of.
Totally. I really enjoy your line of thought. How can we step outside to analyze a process, in a world that made speed its' utmost priority, without falling (personally) behind? It is already difficult to make time for any philsophical thought that goes beyond "what is this?" and maybe "why is this there?" - and that manly just to more or less remain a decent human being while making everyday decisions.
Oh, now I see why Zoroaster catches your attention, or is it rather Nietsche's Zarathustra who was allowed to prosper, setting out to overcome the analysis ot that very dualism who made his name know (yet not too famous) over the centuries.
That's sharp Massimo.
You're right, Nietzsche's Z is the more relevant figure here... while the original one gave us dualism, Nietzsche's was supposed to overcome it. But... wasn't Nietzsche's allowed to prosper exactly because the system misread him? Ironically, the kind of power-serving velocity I tried to describe.
Marinetti quoted Nietzsche, and so did the people Marinetti aligned with. The whole idea of overcoming dualism became a tool for one side of the dualism. Which might actually be the deeper pattern here. It's not just that certain velocities get funded and others get a weird look. It's that even the frameworks designed to transcend that split get ironically absorbed back into the split itself.
Nietzsche wanted to move beyond good and evil. System said "Cool! let's use that to justify our version of good." (haha). This forces another question... can any framework of transcendence survive actual contact with the algorithm itself? Scary? Unsolvable? Human nature? We'll probably never really know, because we're thinking from inside the thing we're trying to see the outside of.
Totally. I really enjoy your line of thought. How can we step outside to analyze a process, in a world that made speed its' utmost priority, without falling (personally) behind? It is already difficult to make time for any philsophical thought that goes beyond "what is this?" and maybe "why is this there?" - and that manly just to more or less remain a decent human being while making everyday decisions.