Amor fati ...
is family related to New Age ideas - as pointed out by Signal - but with a difference in practical terms. New Agers tend to view less pleasant events as lessons. This give them an immediate post traumatic stress process - they mull over what they must have learned. IOW they run up into their heads to find the silver lining. Amor fati would be less mental, more about the transformation involved in the embracing attitude, as if whatever does not kill one makes one stronger. Not that it does. But it sounds dionysian, rather than the overly mental, afraid of passion New Age version. There is no mulling, no hermeneutics of the event that was unpleasant. We react, it effects us. We go with this transformative process whole heartedly - in theory. It's really just part of the heart.
in
the platform sutra, shen-hsiu, the learned and
literate monk, presents the following verse:
the body is the bodhi tree,
the mind is like a clear mirror.
at all times we must strive to polish it,
and must not let the dust collect.
hung-jen, the master, deems this inadequate and suggestive of an incomplete understanding. and so, hui-neng, the illiterate wood-cutter, presents the following:
bodhi originally has no tree,
the mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
where is there room for dust (to alight)?
buddhist literature typically construes the former as advocating a gradual awakening, whereas the latter emphasizes the sudden and immediate. i see the former as "reflective" of our hermeneutical and semiological inclinations, whereas the latter stresses the pre-reflective. for most, avoiding and averting the former is an exercise in futility.
hence my initial alarm, when invert nexus wrote this:
My understanding of what it means is derived solely from my reading of Nietzsche and has only been validated from lectures and readings on the interpretation of Nietzsche.
I'll post tomorrow what he really means.
c'mon, derived
solely?! heidegger made this mistake (ever forgetful of the jewgreek), as do certain strains of the "scientifically minded," but few can make such a claim with a straight face--lest one was raised by wolves. i'll refrain from commenting on "what he
really means."
I smell, like Parmalee, a resistence to dualism in Amor Fati - no supposed to be opposed to is. No outside arbritration. Also no split self - one part reacting/transforming and the other one objecting objectively. He is trying to unifiy himself/us. Give 'it' a full, unified reaction. If you say yes, you are fuller. Though sadly split, see below. And not fuller, especially over time, as one erodes saying yes where no is the natural response.
likewise, we are all irrepressibly teleologically inclined. some more than others. i'm reminded of the way some folks on this forum (and elsewhere) employ phrases like "paradigm shift": i have to wonder if they are even reading the same kuhn, or popper, that i am? (if i were really trying to be objective, i would extend my criticism and dismay to the more anarcho-primitivist sorts, or--to borrow j. zerzan's phrase--the "bohemian schiz-fluxers.")
with regards to dualisms and western metaphysics, i think nietzsche rather schizophrenic. though i also think his conception of will has been muddied by careless readers, from frank herbert to herman hesse to (fer chris'sake)
ayn rand. and, one cannot overlook how many still consider masochism a "perversion."
It ties in, like a bargain, with N's rebellion against guilt. Just as I cannot be judged, so the outer cannot be judged. I need not feel guilty - as so many norms will try to make me feel and more importantly constrain myself because of - and I in turn do not hold the universe up to be judged. I am/it is. Period.
And in forcing back guilt and being consistent N creates an idea that generates shame. It has within it the same splits as religions produce. Oddly it also reifies language. nay-saying is shameful, as if nay-saying were not a part of what is - in N himself, in us. So the little fascist in the mind who tries to adhere to Amor fati, must tame so many reactions 'in here' in the name of accepting, no embracing what is 'out there.'
No, no, say yes to everything.
exactly. i cringe whenever i encounter someone describing nietzsche as a nihilist without qualification--that is, without distinguishing the variety of nihilism which nietzsche
does embrace (active or positive nihilism), from the sense which he does not--and yet, at times nietzsche's destructive impulse (even in the form of "affirmations") seems merely reactionary, or just plain destructive. whether this is symptomatic of his "forgetfulness of being," or a shallow insight into human psychology, or his own curious temperament (or even simply a reaction to schopenhauer's pessimism and pitiful interpretation of buddhism) is anyone's guess; but for me, this oversight weakens his endeavor, which even the most skillful exegetes/revisionists have failed to ameliorate.