Converse Pivot Point
I have puzzled over the difference in temperament between a die-hard republican, one who would cast a vote, albeit reluctantly for Trump, rather than vote for any democratic candidate. Or consider the liberal minded who judges the republican to be in thrall to a ghost emanating from the pre-industrial 18th century. There exists a difference in temperament, simply a 180 degree variation of compass orientation between the two sensibilities of mind, it seems to me. This is no mere difference of opinion, to be reconciled by a ‘live-and-let-live” pact… The inability to “see” what the other sees persists, the viewpoints self reinforcing…
Which of these aesthetic descriptions would you assign to the Republican party and which to the Democratic party faithful?
He that is richest
in the fullness of life,
the Dionysian god and man,
cannot only afford the sight of the terrible and questionable
but even the terrible deed and any luxury
of destruction, decomposition, and negation.
In his case,
what is evil, absurd, and ugly
seems, as it were, permissible,
owing to an excess of procreating, fertilizing energies
that can still turn any desert into lush farmland.
Conversely,
those who suffer most and are poorest in life
would need above all mildness, peacefulness,
and goodness in thought as well as deed
—if possible, also a god
who would be truly a god for the sick,
a healer and savior;…
–excerpt The Gay Science, Book 5, Section 370 by Friedrich Nietzsche
2 thoughts on “Converse Pivot Point”
“He that is richest in the fullness of life” juxtaposed with “those who suffer most and are poorest in life” makes me, once again, question the interpretation of language. For instance, the word “fullness” used by Mr. Nietzsche I’m guessing is in regard to physical wealth, i.e. money, homes, and general largess. Yet in my lexicon I interpret “fullness of life” to mean satisfaction, regardless of station or monetary wealth. Many of those in the 0.1% bracket who own 30% of the nation’s capital suffer in greater numbers, per capita, than many who are in the 10% of the lower income. Joie de vivre, as far as I can tell is not exclusively tied to the amount of money one has in their “mattress”, though I do understand that if one is starving or has medical needs that cannot be met because of lack of funds, this can hugely impact outlook and satisfaction in life.
Ultimately my sense is that neither political party has a hold on what is best for our nation, though I do tend to lean towards the concepts espoused by democrats. But both sides are mired in ideology, not wanting to engage in the game of compromise. Accusations of mostly unfounded maleficence are hurled like javelins by the self-righteous. How on earth can one even attempt to find a middle ground when that ground is littered with land mines?
In the end it is up to the voters to shake themselves out of their stupor and vote for candidates who actually have the best interests of all in their hearts. Yes, this is pollyanna style optimism at is best (worst) and has little chance of coming to fruition, but we have to try and hold up some kind of Edenistic goal to keep ourselves sane.
It is possible to live well without affluence. Perhaps one must find oneself, existentially come home, discovering wherein one finds satisfaction. To be/have enough.
Politics attracts like moths to a flame those who are hungry for prestige, for power, of which there’s never enough.