2011/8/25 hampus lindblad
Yes! That is more or less what I tried to describe with my squash wall example! Let's say you are playing the game solo. You could just hit the wall straight on and thus give yourself a very easy time. It would allow you to tell yourself how good a player you are because you can just stand there for long periods never failing to return the ball to the wall. But after a while it will become boring and harder and harder to keep alive the illusion of your great skill as you are not taking any chances at all. Not pushing the envelope to the slightest degree. Then you may try to start adding some variation to the game, thus increasing the difficulty but also the enjoyment. The game is now completely different, but the wall remains always the same.
With a second player things start to become really interesting as the complexity increases exponentially. Assuming for the sake of argument that you have "perfect" skill and your opponent hasn't, then the choice stands between what type of game is the most constructive and enjoyable from a long term perspective. You could completely crush your opponent, but then every game will be very short and soon he or she might lose interest in playing against you whilst not learning anything due to a insurmountable learning curve. And what good does your control of the racket provide you with if in the end all it produces is the self-depreciation of others. You will end up playing a very lonely game, where no amount of variation in trajectories and energy will seem to amount to anything but masturbation.
So is it not wiser to lower the difficulty level and ignore the demands of your ego, thus keeping the ball alive longer, allowing your opponent to both find enjoyment as well as improvement of his or her skill? This so that future games will provide you with a increasingly more sophisticated resistance. Imagine a game where both of you are of equal skill and the beauty of your exchanges are practically transcendentally exquisite...
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Alexander Bard
Dear Dino and Hampus
I believe Zarathusthtra's whole point - as with any process philosopher - is to leave the choice free (or rather explain that it always is) but then try to understand end explain the CONSEQUENCES of choices taken. It is quite easy for us to choose logically - and foresee the PRACTICAL and PHYSICAL consequences of our actions - but the really tough question which absorbed Zarathushtra is the question of WHAT OUR CHOICES DO TO US. Who am I before I choose? Who do I become after my choice? And who do I become after the consequences of actions taken become apparent? Which direction in my life are my actions taking ME as seen by myself?
This is a concern Zarathushtra shared with Nietzsche, but which does not seem to concern Zizek much (who doesn't speak of affirmation in his works). I believe it is the most important question of all. Nihilsim becomes AFFIRMATIVE the second it is properly thought through, and acted upon, this is when it becomes an AFFIRMATIVE nihilism and creates the opportunity for "amor faiti" or its result, "asha-vahishta".
2011/8/25 Special Kain
I agree. The thing that comes next is CHOICE. To choose what to do with it next and how to do it. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are at least two sides to nihilism: nihilism out of strength and nihilism out of weakness.
This is different from Slavoj Zizek's take on Nietzscheanism: active nihilism (one's willingness to destroy everything in equal measure) vs. passive nihilism (one's willingness to surrender to relentless destruction).
I really don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts? Much appreciated!