302)
It is the same Dionysian impulse that gives the author an unparalleled under- standing of the psychodramatic tissue of ancient tragedy and, at the same time, opens his eyes to the Dionysians of the commonplace, the satyr plays of the
and the circles of hell of the ?
It is the same Dionysian impulse that gives the author an unparalleled under- standing of the psychodramatic tissue of ancient tragedy and, at the same time, opens his eyes to the Dionysians of the commonplace, the satyr plays of the
and the circles of hell of the ?
Peter-Sloterdijk-Thinker-on-Stage
?
?
?
?
DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES D 55
pearing incognito as something ? hermetic, and far removed from tragedy. The plausibility of this suggestion stands and falls with that of these ini- tial assumptions: that there must necessarily be Dionysians of the commonplace; that the truth of Dionysus also knows a nontragic means for manifesting itself; and that therefore a suspension of consciousness has developed that deciphers the arrival of the god in the thousand ordinary things that, because of their everyday occurrence among us, make up what we refer to as the world.
Assuming that this is all true, it is obvious why the philosophical thought that had become scholastic had to have experienced great difficulty in defining itself from the very ? it has ever since been communicated best whenever it has itself forgotten that for which it had originally stood. In Nietz- sche's Birth of Tragedy, the veil is pulled back a bit from the mystery for the first time. Accordingly, the Dionysian calm after the storm appears as the authentic philosophy. It is the celebration of the commonplace in the light of excess; a haze of postorgiastic thoughtfulness therefore surrounds all original thought. The ec- stasy vanishes, order returns once again, and the everyday resumes its course. But the astonishment remains. The elevated universal experience or universal fusion of intoxication has an obscure aftereffect. ? we say,
Dionysian fissure gapes open like an abyss or a nothingness into which everything that comes along will henceforth sink like something mon- strous, even if it is the most unobtrusive and commonplace.
In its most pedantic manifestation, however, philosophy would not consider thinking of itself in this way. Soon after its debut, it had already involved itself in an undertaking all its ? It soon forgot that it had initially been one half of a bipartite cultural wonder, which led on the one hand to the birth of tragedy out of the spirit of the musical orgy, and on the other to the birth of philosophy out of the spirit of difficulty, which was to be carried out in the interim between orgies. Since ? philosophy has turned a deaf ear whenever it has been in a position to hear the truth about itself; it does not want to acknowledge that it is a mode of thought that is in a state of remembrance of orgies ? -- an orgy in place of an orgy, a drama in place of a drama. Like every chronic search, it one day put itself in the place of what it was seeking and thereby lost itself, seemingly self-satis- fied, in the contemplation of higher realms of thought and spiritual hidden worlds, intelligible structures and logical procedures. What would later be called "metaphysics" developed through this substitution; "theory" developed through the repression of the Dionysian consciousness of universal arrival
by the objectifying and stagnant worldview; both have left a very deep impression on the history of the West. In both, the dominion of a
"truth" is announced, the consequences of which seem
Nietzsche was the first to recognize that the word " t r u t h " was almost always,
in the language of philosophy, the equivalent of "substitute," "alibi," "pre- text," "surrogate," and ? He saw through the illusion of
? ? ? ? ? ? 56 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
the "real world" as a surrogate world, and through the "true" knowledge of the philosophers as a knowledge in place of knowledge. Philosophical truth was for him always a "truth" that stands in place of something else. What is true within the truth therefore cannot possibly be understood without a theory of substitution and representation ? Once again we encounter ? great subject of illusion; once again we observe the interplay between an affirmative illusion that places value on its impenetrability, and a residue of transparency that makes it possible to think from now on within the context of a critical function. For if the substitute were not, to a certain extent, just as good as or better than what it was replacing, it could not replace it. If it did not stand in its place, we would always have to be dealing with something that could not be substituted
would always be immersed in the mute thing in and of itself and would not be able to maintain any distance from it. Thus, it would seem to lie in the nature of the substitution that it places a substitute before ? through which we can apapt ourselves to it. What cannot be replaced herein reveals its affinity with the
What does this have to do with philosophy? Naturally, these surrogate Diony- sians, who have established themselves as hard-hearted lovers of
belong in some way to the Dionysian phenomenon because they could not replace it otherwise. They acquire their critical distance to the real Dionysians "first and
however, in that they sense nothing of their own surrogate-Dionysian quality and have since the time of Socrates found themselves in the position of being oblivious to Dionysus. And yet, if Dionysus is also the god of the surrogate Dionysians, then a Dionysian fundamental phenomenon must take place in the Dionysian oblivion of theoretical thought. And accordingly, Dionysus also pre- vails in the modus of his withdrawal, his absence, his oblivion. Only in the twi- light hours of thought and within the framework of epochal ruptures in intellec- tual history does Dionysus awaken, as it were, to himself and become a more reasoning mode of thought ? condition of alertness inspired by dangers, which no longer represents anything but is rather the unmediated ? of the
Does this suggest merely a variation on Heidegger's thought, which has not yet decided between parody and paraphrase? One would have to say instead that Heidegger has transposed Nietzsche's parody of philosophy into an unauthorized melancholic key. There is everything to indicate that this time the farce preceded the melancholic version and that Heidegger's parody of Nietzsche is a more se- rious offense against the rules of art than the droll ? It is a parody in place of a ? philosophy was in its infancy, who would have thought that it would someday bring forth something like this? But there should be no panic among Heidegger's adoring ? That The Birth of Tragedy can be read as we have read it already presupposes the alternatives ? that Heideg- ger's earnest thinking out has won by means of Nietzsche's impulse to criticize
? ? ? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 57
and the dramaturgical freedom we have assumed in our reading of The Gay Science is one of which Heidegger was the coconqueror. Nietzsche's playfulness becomes evident only in contrast to Heidegger's seriousness. But what permeates the seriousness and jocularity is an epochal mutation of con- sciousness, the consequences of which become immeasurable once Nietzsche has entered his postmetaphysical period ? mutation that cuts like a century-long awakening into an era of thought and that counteracts its dramatic ? He who is lucky enough to be able, because of the modest organization of his intellect, to dismiss this as mere irrationalism should stay asleep for a while ? an unusual task awaits those who have awakened early.
This task begins with this still-painful denunciation of Socrates that gapes forth in Nietzsche's book like an open wound. Nietzsche disguises himself here as a freethinker well schooled in the best tradition of the Enlightenment who is striking down a father of the church with the momentum of his anticlerical fury. Socrates, the father of the theoretical ? Socrates, the archdogmatist of human self-improvement through mere reason! Socrates, the intellectual mixer of poi- sons and demon of a negative enlightenment! Socrates, the unmusical barbarian of thought who, in his furor of reason, no longer conceives of tragedy as a mis- fortune but rather as a "problem," and who no longer understands that life is above all else a process of ? ? not an object for self-reflexive
With him, the decline of tragic consciousness begins, and phi- losophy enters into an age of theoretical optimism, a term that is merely another name for the most insipid Dionysian obliviousness.
Listen to the tone of these reproaches! Nietzsche is not protesting against the abrupt invasion of the scientific intellect into Greek thought, which occurred in the brief interim between the appearance of Socrates and the work of Aristotle. He objects to the un-Dionysian, unartistic, theoretical self-misrepresentation of philosophy in the persons of those who ? ? its greatest rep-
He does not intend to forgive Socrates for having destroyed the unity of art and philosophy that had lent its depth to an older way of thinking and was informed by Dionysus, and which could be rediscovered in a new way of thinking. The Birth of Tragedy therefore does not limit itself to an anti-Socratic tirade, and certainly not to a mere denunciation of philosophy. In publishing his
Nietzsche intended to point the way to a future potential of an art-enriched thought that has been reborn through the spirit of Dionysus. Ecce philosophus! Dionysus philosophos!
In this early book, Nietzsche has already initiated a radical restylization of the philosophical intellect. Even in his great reprimand of Socrates, his intention is to save the thinker from his merely theoretical obsession. " I f philosophy is art if the philosopher is possibly only a clever he-goat in a state of postor- giastic then the concerns of Dionysus are not lost theoretically. Two
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 58 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
alternatives are available, through which the he-goat could dispense with his the- oretical ? has taken both into ? The theoretical So- crates could be rehabilitated through Dionysus as a ? or as a
i n g " Socrates.
The first path had already been offered to the ancient Socrates, if the legend is correct, by his demon ? this time spoke to him not to dissuade him, as he usually did, but to challenge him: "Socrates, make ? For Nietzsche, this meant that a philosopher could be forgiven for anything except for being musi- cally deficient. However, to the extent that Socrates represented the incarnation of a concept-weaving unmusicality, he really did lead philosophy in a direction that was unforgivable. Nietzsche does not, however, view this false step as irre- versible. Had not Schopenhauer, in his metaphysics of music, already broken through the wall that divided the philosophical universe from the musical one? Was not Wagner a living example of the fact that it was possible to unite the genius of music with the tragically ideal in earlier doctrines of truth? ? above all else, was not Nietzsche himself already involved in testing a new union of the divided spheres?
As far as the "raving" Socrates was concerned (a figure who would assume a significance as great as it was clandestine in Nietzsche's later writing), he need only read what Diogenes hawked to Laertius in his Lives and Thoughts of Famous Philosophers through his namesake from Sinope. Here we read Sokrates mainomenos; the phrase was coined by no less than Plato. And what could be read beyond this ? collection of anecdotes on a capricious, malicious, life-drenched doctrine of wisdom that refused to constitute a
enough to offer Nietzsche, the artist-theoretician who despaired of theoretical thought, advice he should never forget. This would all point to the trace of the almost physical untheoretical spirituality of the character type that was Diony-
and yet
In future writings, Nietzsche will mention his ancient source only with an
averted gaze. Only with the protection of a psychological and moralistic incog- nito can he succeed in following the ancient trail (Spur) and in profiting from
to a degree that would exceed anything ? "Something cynical, per- haps; something ? ? ? 2, p. 375) will now come into play in all of his works.
Nietzsche's discretion here is easy to understand. By openly establishing a connection with the irreverent bravura of the "cynical writers" (he refers to as we will ? in The Birth of Tragedy in the course of his criticism of the Platonic dialogue as the equivalent of the novel form for ideas), he would
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? have disavowed his stance of tragic, aristocratic
me eternal royal child ? ? had invested so to make two admissions at once, when the one ifestation of the Dionysian ? already difficult
in which h e - He would have had there was a nontragic man- He only succeeded in
? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 59
making the second admission right at the very end: he admitted that there might also be a plebeian form of ? For, in spite of everything, there appeared within the earliest form of "kynicism" an indespicable plebeian gallantry as the
of the poor scoundrel -- indeed, as in Crates, there appears in poverty as a chosen way of life a rare sovereignty. More than any individual ? there is a wild sense for the price of freedom, and he would experience the denunciation of the lies of comfort and the beautiful antics of the middle ? In the primary representations of ? an impressive denial of the authority of man- made laws is ? in the decision to submit himself without cul- tural trimmings to the majesty of the physis. Here the term physis does not mean the paragon of the object world or the gearwork of an obdurate cosmic causality; it is to a much greater extent the guarantor of an existence that does not defer to any reification, and is thus esteemed as the physical foundation of ecstasy, of which the freedom speeches of the philosophers communicate only the diluted infusion. The ancient speech of physis was not a tyrannically objectifying cult of physicalism, but rather a ways and means through which the consciousness of a
gnosis of the body could express itself.
A ll of this had too much in common with Nietzsche's own philosophical and psychological tendencies to have eluded him for long. Indeed,
together with certain rudimentary elements within the stoical Heraclitic move-
the last and most anonymous form of ancient doctrines of wisdom, and thus of a form of thought that conforms to the play of forces and the disso- nant consonance of physis, without losing itself in the phantasms of philosophical doctrines of the beyond. Let the depraved ghosts worry about transcendence and spin out their "relationship" with ? The consciousness of the ecstatic physicists (Physiker) refuses to ascend into the transcendent worlds of the phi- losophers because for them there exists no transcendence that remains within physis and that values it highly enough. He who wanted to establish a taphysical mode of thought, as Nietzsche undertook to do in the strongest mo- ments of his thought and in his whole literary guerrilla war on the great truths -- he had to take up the trail of the last ? especially if he was to prove that he was a Greek scholar who had read his Laertius better than anyone else.
But what does it mean to take up the trail of a consciousness that, because it lacks the will to theory and does not believe in the vital significance of specula- has left hardly a trace behind it? What constitutes the trail of this conscious- ness, which has disappeared almost without a trace? Surely not these few state- ments by the "kynics" on the cosmos as the home of man or on nature as the measure of action? Presuming even the slightest standard for a theoretically de- veloped capacity to question, these statements must be found lacking. The do-
minion of "kynicism" lies elsewhere ? its habitus, its mood, its infatuation with the current, in its style. This oscillates wherever it is authentically
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 60 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
died, between didactic pantomime and satirical "checkered ? --satyr plays of the body and the ? Thus the concept of literature comes into play here for the second time with a specific ? ? Nietzsche violates the rules of his profession with his brightly checkered ? of philosophy, no dif- ferently than the way in which he had, during his initial appearance on stage, already strayed from the framework of what was permissible within the
of philology. It was precisely in doing this that he ? surreptitiously, but also with a decisiveness that leaves no room for any ? up the thread of that which has stretched from the "cynical writers" of antiquity through countless entanglements into modernity.
The Gay Science begins to spin its vestments from this thread; it will soon openly speak its name in the title of a subsequent book. It will speak first with the best kynical psychologizing of the "human, ? of the petty, ma- lignant truths of the commonplace that the blind gaze of theoretical sight has al- ready overlooked. Without literature, no truth; without psychology, no alertness; without "cynicism," no freedom to call things by their names.
And yet one should not delude oneself about the status of Nietzsche's psychol- ogy. However much it flirts with the perspective of the natural sciences and the stupidity of British positivism; however much it purports to flee into the Apol- lonian and plays out the role of a cold presence of mind in the face of former ecstasies, this psychology has, at its impulsive core, a long since been not a the- oretical undertaking but instead a dramatic one. It organizes Dionysians of civil- ity, and excesses of disillusionment. Dionysus cool. Nietzsche wrote in retro- spect:
But he who is related to me by the height of desire thereby experiences the true ecstasies of learning. ? ? ? There is absolutely no prouder and at the same refined type of book ? ? ? here and there they achieve the height of what can be achieved on earth, cynicism: one has to conquer them with the most tender fingers as well as with the bravest fists.
6, p.
302)
It is the same Dionysian impulse that gives the author an unparalleled under- standing of the psychodramatic tissue of ancient tragedy and, at the same time, opens his eyes to the Dionysians of the commonplace, the satyr plays of the
and the circles of hell of the ? As an aesthetician as well as a psychologist, Nietzsche becomes the mouthpiece of a consequential Dionysian invasion of the theoretical and moralistic culture of modern bourgeois society.
It is true that, in his twofold presence as orgy participant and psychologist, as Dionysian hero and critical rogue, Nietzsche brings to light a character who is anything but straightforward. He is modern, with all the implications of that term, and as such does not omit the self-contradiction and ambivalence that
? ? ? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
belong to ? He is decadent; a man who has been seriously wounded by culture, in all its resultant ramifications ? most valuable of which appear openly unequivocal with time. As E. M. Cioran has correctly observed, "His misere was therapeutic for us; he opened up the era of ? His was, indeed, a ? ? and yet nothing could prevent him from discovering in himself deeper reserves of healthiness than anyone would have credited him with, considering his wound. His laughter was unfounded; the experience of his life did not justify it. Perhaps because of this he was authorized as no one else had been to state that pleasure within the context of sorely tested exist-
a deeper phenomenon than In any case, he had, as
intellect, discovered something that was uncomplicated within a condition of complexity ? halcyon cheerfulness with which he veiled the news of the terri- ble truth. Cheerfulness is the courtesy of the
Even now, the Gay Science is still the most polite way to openly discuss the unbearable elements of existence. There is no way to retaliate against the clever idiots who, because of the light tone of the work, conclude that the thought con- tained therein is in itself ? with the beautiful statement with which Nietzsche has characterized the relationship between the philosopher and those among his public who are merely clever and inexperienced:
Every deep thinker fears being understood more than he fears being misunderstood. The latter wounds his vanity, perhaps, but the former wounds his heart, his sense of compassion, which always responds, "Ah, why do the likes of you want to suffer as I do? " ? 5, p.
Nietzsche paid a high price for discovering that Dionysus not only manifests him- self as a suffering hero and an ecstatic chorus, but can also plunge into the human fray as a psychologist, itinerant mystic, accursed philosopher, and stylist. When he escaped into the nonidealistic, he lost the sympathies of the ? and thus let fall the most important external supports for his confident self-aware-
Anyone who studies Nietzsche's inner conflicts during the period of his sep- aration from the cult of Wagner and from the constraints of the academic chair in Basel will find it hard to avoid speaking of a social ? a categorical existential and philosophical separation. For those who have entered into the psychonaut-
circle, a social death is inevitable. Only it can bring to an end the interplay between the collective and the personal lies of which unite so gladly around common values: I praise you, you praise both lie. But he who is expe-
a social death because he has begun to find himself can no longer be helped by anything general or by any external ? Whoever believes that he is engaged in real thought without having first peered into the abyss of his
singularity is merely trying to convince himself that he is
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 62 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
dreams a conformist's dream, and wishes it were the dream of a critical con- sciousness. He who really thinks is condemned to an isolation that compels him to begin anew and to fulfill himself; henceforth, there will no longer be any "tra-
but only a rediscovery of himself in affinities and constellations. During his "kynical," ? knowledge-criticizing years, Nietz- sche forged ahead into an isolation that was constitutive of a mode of thought oriented toward the terrible truth. Only through the discovery of a positive and liberating isolation could the pleasurable-painful (lustschmerzlich) prophecy of the Dionysian ? free itself from its involvement in the idealistic fraud of the Wagner cult. Because isolation exonerated him from all consider- ations, Nietzsche was quickly able to free himself from the false classicist man- nerisms that still cling to his book on tragedy. Redemption from the idols created space for the implementation of harder, purer values. From now on, it was a matter of Voltaire versus Wagner, romantic esprit versus a deep-rooted Teutonic clumsiness, the freethinker versus the religious fanatic, a serene nihilism versus a neoidealist self-indulgence in higher worlds, the malicious tongue versus a beautiful foaming at the mouth, the shadowless phenomena of the south versus the northern lights of cynicism, the "cynical" music of Carmen versus Wagner's oppressive Venusberg, the truth of the small energetic stab versus the lie of great
style.
One thing cannot be denied: Nietzsche was profound in his descent into the isolation of his new precision. From this point on we have known more about the consanguinity of cruelty and profundity, but also more about that of the precision of good ? precision nota bene of musicians and artists, not of admin- istrators of knowledge and those who count mistakes, who confuse devotion to their inhibitions with precision.
He who shoots off theorems like arrows and gives out bites like statements must believe that he can rely on what he is saying having an effect on the pain/pleasure scale, index veri, for the author as well as for the public. Nietzsche practiced this belief as only a true believer can; his credo demanded that there should be no pronouncements of truth without consequences -- and if these consisted of the perishing of the perceiver because of that through which his will to truth had overextended ? fiat Veritas, pereat vita. This outlook on the possible adver- sity inherent in the correspondence between knowledge and effect explains why Nietzsche's credo suggests more than merely an overblown artist's concern for effect, and certainly not a reduction of philosophy to rhetoric.
Nietzsche's concept of style is based on a condensation of all speech into the pleasurable/painful physical foundation of knowledge. In his pronouncements on the truth itself begins to become concrete ? in Lenin's sense, which ultimately confused truth with grenades and allowed its concreteness to atrophy into a strategic brutality called ? Rather, it is concrete in the sense of a
? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 63
aesthetic ? return of the true into what can be perceived as true, a re- newed and deepened investigation of knowledge and sensuality. Nietzsche's writ- ing provides the prototype for a modern philosophical orality. What increasingly takes the upper hand in his pronouncements on truth ? in addition to the musical character of his lecture in general, the bittersweet pleasure he finds in taking the
into his mouth ? der Welt) as something he both loves and hates; the wild joy in biting and being bitten without which the Diony- sians of this divination would not possess a physical foundation in the body. One can also say that, in Nietzsche, the sense of taste once again takes on a philo- sophical dimension as the most intimate of the universal senses. Philosophy reaches back into its somatic sources; the world is initially experienced through the
For this reason, Nietzsche's critique of knowledge and psychology
larly that of the middle ? not comprise a soul-soothing theory, even though it does borrow from the grammatical structure and philosophical vocab- ulary of such a theory. His "theory" is an oral guerrilla campaign (guerilla). It is true that his philosophical, psychocritical writings are presented in a glittering Apollonian prose that, with its malicious simplicity, feigns contempt for any merely theoretical complexity. But these writings, with their forced rationalism and positivistic ? should be read as oral Dionyses in They are the bites, screams, and leaps ? into language ? a psyche com- pelled to communicate its cool state of delirium alongside the constant arrival
of the world.
Nietzsche is trying out a way of speaking that gushes forth from the speaker so
quickly, so precisely, so dryly, so ? and so fatally that, for a moment, the difference between life and speech seems to have disappeared. In the mo- ments of the highest oral intensity, that which is said is consumed in the act of saying it; all representations are reduced to ashes in the act of being expressed. There are no longer any semantics, only gesticulations; no longer any ideas, only tropes of energy; no longer any higher meaning, only temporal stimulation; no logos, only orality. There is no longer anything holy, only heartbeats; no longer any spirit, only breath; no longer a god, only the movements of a
Who can wonder at the fact that, up until this day, this language has been in search of those who understand it? It is the language of the postmetaphyical human being, and perhaps only a sort of children's language as ? return to a joyful orality at the heights of culture?
A hundred years after Nietzsche, it now and again seems as if an almost popular coming to terms with this singular philosopher were possible. Perhaps a majority of the aesthetic successes and the important philosophical self-representations of the present day are only the fulfillment of what was announced in his work. One indication of this among countless many is the excessive corroboration that
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 64 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
Nietzsche's verdict on the "cynical" Carmen has found among the mass public today. In addition, we could also count the return of opera, the renaissance of pathos, the discovery of a second misfortune ? a general obsession
the physical, the wholesale renunciation of ? apparitions, the irresistible privileging of taste over ethics, and the unnerving vacillation of souls between isolation and consolidation ? between the effort to separate and the desire to unify, between the hell of difference and that of identity. A l l of these are Nietzsche's landscapes, and we inhabit these landscapes, not because we "also" share his problems, but because his problems and the language in which he deals with them increasingly guide and overshadow our own problematizing.
Taste instead of ? will it lead? What is taste, anyway? How can such an unfathomable quantity take on meaning in intellectual terms? And what if this is not the proper way to phrase the question? What if all systems of signi- fication ? have always been merely systems of
ways and means of translating the aroma of the world into linguistic articula- tions? Could it not be that all metaphysical doctrines have only served to coat the bitter pill of life in the sweet confection of an assigned meaning? ? ? you tell me, friends, that there is no disputing of taste and tasting? But all of life is a dispute of taste and tasting" ? ? Zarathustra, "On Those Who Are
Have not all the great methods for organizing the world been merely manipulations of taste (it is no coincidence that the words "cosmology" and "cosmetics" have the same root), and all philosophical statements only per- fumed attempts to stifle the unbearable fumes of the universal sewer in the effort involved in conceptualization? Psychology tells us that taste is the most intimate, the most universal sense of ? and Heidegger tells us that moods explain the world. The preacher Salomonis went into greater detail: woman is bitter, he said, and Nietzsche shared in this taste ? questioning the authority of his biblical predecessor.
Nietzsche's exceptional position among the modern philosophical authors is grounded above all, in my opinion, on the fact that, like almost no other thinker before him, he focused his reflections exclusively on the interplay between mood and taste. He was a philosophizing stylist because he consciously adapted his writing to the modi of orality. Speaking with an extraordinary intensity of moods, keys, variations of taste, levels of volume and tempi, he was the first philosopher to grasp that language itself, style itself, and expression itself ? nothing other than lifeless pseudo-Platonisms, from which the remains of life were fleeing. As a consequence, the expression of truth in itself came to a halt for him. How truths were expressed was from then on their own affair, and was relative to the mood (Stimmung) of the instrument upon which they were ? excitable body. The reverse side of this insight would read as follows: Eliminate the excitability of the body, and you will win one "truth. "
? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 65
Wearing the mask of Zarathustra, Nietzsche was the one who, as the first modernist and without having been a ? came upon a truth that wanted to be danced. He was also the one who knew that truth could be expressed in laughter. A truth-through-tears (Wahr-Weinen) had also confided in him in moments of Dionysian emotion, without taking into consideration the soldier in him, who preferred to find the truth contained in "holding fast" and standing his ground. And what could be said about the ? ? that presented itself as an accompanying symptom of the severe ? headaches that plagued the flayed body of the writer who had so little flair for lying?
Nietzsche developed two modes for expressing the truth to a greater extent than any of the others: truth-through-biting ? and truth-through- singing ? both of which are the ultimate stagings of an oral truth that has been mediated by taste and mood. Truth-through-biting is the prototyp- ical gesture of a psychological writing of the "kynical" type of unmasking, which oscillates between a biting to death that causes him to
through ("The cattle among my friends, mere Germans, by your leave ? ? ? ? or through deprivation (did he not refer to Lou Salome, after the "disappointment," as that "withered, dirty, foul-smelling little ape, with her false ? ? the desirously precise, cruel and tender nibbling at subjects with which mere contemplation would accomplish nothing in the face of a sen- sual hunger for knowledge. Nietzsche knew truth-through-singing as a gesture that legitimately appeared with anyone who had learned, through great suffering, to cherish the value of good moments. "Singing is for those who are convalesc- ing; the healthy man prefers to A man who had to bite through entire worlds of constraints and deficiencies ? man who was too sensitive, who wanted too much, but who was also like an eternal convalescent, so happy to be able to celebrate in song a few great recoveries, Nietzsche exercised in his work a body of writing that brought to light, between the small bite and the great
between laconism and the dithyramb, an unmistakable individuality.
This wonderfully mobile and well-trained body of language executed "leaps and handstands" (letter of January 25, 1882), which even today could not be performed by anyone who was theoretically motionless and on ice, even if he published fat-bodied theories of aesthetic experience. But Nietzsche's capers would be fundamentally misrepresented if we were to see in them only vigorous asides to serious questions of truth. In them was ? as it was
his flights of pathos ? Dionysian subversion of the esprit de serieux, with which the modern world, with its theoretical and moralistic dominions of senti- is leadenly weighed down. In his physicality of language (Sprachkbrper- he wanted to announce a new ethics (Phooey! But do we still react this today? ) of thought. Nietzsche's holy lesson in behavior is recommended as be a hygienic or dietetic ? a sort of intellectual and spjritual musical ? as a mental gymnastics course for practicing a new pyschophy-
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 66 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
ethics of intensity. Nietzsche knew that there was nothing more improper than a lack of energy that appears disguised as a ? He sensed that there was nothing more suspect than a fear of the truth that passed itself off as a critical consciousness, and nothing more perverse than an inability to recognize that which confused itself with ? Above ? Nietzsche developed a thoroughly volatile sense for the obscenity of the so-called communication of subjects who are not sufficiently daring in how they express themselves; how he hated the phenomenon which George Grosz later caricatured in his Republican
functionaries of their own selves, these display-window mannequins of their own ? He uncovered the vampirism inherent not only
in the Christian ethic but, to an even greater extent, in that of a retical culture.
I am certain that, in the long run, this will prove to be the more important of Nietzsche's reassessments of values. The "unmasking" of Christianity as movement of ressentiment and as an epochal deadly assault may prove insignif- icant when compared to the uncovering of the physicality of thought. This is not a mode of thought that concentrates on the body, and not a ? of the physical against the intellectual; rather, it is a physical intellectuality in which the drama of a postmetaphysics appears. Therefore it is always an intelligence "on the verge" of something ? intelligence in transit, on stage, in the mood. It does not cling to the subject as if it were private property, but thrusts it
like a provocation and a revelation. Perhaps in this context the limitations of the old dumbstruck Enlightenment will become blindingly ? clear as repre- senting those of an attempt to limit intelligence like an active subjective property to a defined center of a ? risk-free character, instead of an understanding that comes into play only as a dramatic and procedural quantity ? the illusion of the propertied individual that has distorted every aspect of life in modernity.
pearing incognito as something ? hermetic, and far removed from tragedy. The plausibility of this suggestion stands and falls with that of these ini- tial assumptions: that there must necessarily be Dionysians of the commonplace; that the truth of Dionysus also knows a nontragic means for manifesting itself; and that therefore a suspension of consciousness has developed that deciphers the arrival of the god in the thousand ordinary things that, because of their everyday occurrence among us, make up what we refer to as the world.
Assuming that this is all true, it is obvious why the philosophical thought that had become scholastic had to have experienced great difficulty in defining itself from the very ? it has ever since been communicated best whenever it has itself forgotten that for which it had originally stood. In Nietz- sche's Birth of Tragedy, the veil is pulled back a bit from the mystery for the first time. Accordingly, the Dionysian calm after the storm appears as the authentic philosophy. It is the celebration of the commonplace in the light of excess; a haze of postorgiastic thoughtfulness therefore surrounds all original thought. The ec- stasy vanishes, order returns once again, and the everyday resumes its course. But the astonishment remains. The elevated universal experience or universal fusion of intoxication has an obscure aftereffect. ? we say,
Dionysian fissure gapes open like an abyss or a nothingness into which everything that comes along will henceforth sink like something mon- strous, even if it is the most unobtrusive and commonplace.
In its most pedantic manifestation, however, philosophy would not consider thinking of itself in this way. Soon after its debut, it had already involved itself in an undertaking all its ? It soon forgot that it had initially been one half of a bipartite cultural wonder, which led on the one hand to the birth of tragedy out of the spirit of the musical orgy, and on the other to the birth of philosophy out of the spirit of difficulty, which was to be carried out in the interim between orgies. Since ? philosophy has turned a deaf ear whenever it has been in a position to hear the truth about itself; it does not want to acknowledge that it is a mode of thought that is in a state of remembrance of orgies ? -- an orgy in place of an orgy, a drama in place of a drama. Like every chronic search, it one day put itself in the place of what it was seeking and thereby lost itself, seemingly self-satis- fied, in the contemplation of higher realms of thought and spiritual hidden worlds, intelligible structures and logical procedures. What would later be called "metaphysics" developed through this substitution; "theory" developed through the repression of the Dionysian consciousness of universal arrival
by the objectifying and stagnant worldview; both have left a very deep impression on the history of the West. In both, the dominion of a
"truth" is announced, the consequences of which seem
Nietzsche was the first to recognize that the word " t r u t h " was almost always,
in the language of philosophy, the equivalent of "substitute," "alibi," "pre- text," "surrogate," and ? He saw through the illusion of
? ? ? ? ? ? 56 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
the "real world" as a surrogate world, and through the "true" knowledge of the philosophers as a knowledge in place of knowledge. Philosophical truth was for him always a "truth" that stands in place of something else. What is true within the truth therefore cannot possibly be understood without a theory of substitution and representation ? Once again we encounter ? great subject of illusion; once again we observe the interplay between an affirmative illusion that places value on its impenetrability, and a residue of transparency that makes it possible to think from now on within the context of a critical function. For if the substitute were not, to a certain extent, just as good as or better than what it was replacing, it could not replace it. If it did not stand in its place, we would always have to be dealing with something that could not be substituted
would always be immersed in the mute thing in and of itself and would not be able to maintain any distance from it. Thus, it would seem to lie in the nature of the substitution that it places a substitute before ? through which we can apapt ourselves to it. What cannot be replaced herein reveals its affinity with the
What does this have to do with philosophy? Naturally, these surrogate Diony- sians, who have established themselves as hard-hearted lovers of
belong in some way to the Dionysian phenomenon because they could not replace it otherwise. They acquire their critical distance to the real Dionysians "first and
however, in that they sense nothing of their own surrogate-Dionysian quality and have since the time of Socrates found themselves in the position of being oblivious to Dionysus. And yet, if Dionysus is also the god of the surrogate Dionysians, then a Dionysian fundamental phenomenon must take place in the Dionysian oblivion of theoretical thought. And accordingly, Dionysus also pre- vails in the modus of his withdrawal, his absence, his oblivion. Only in the twi- light hours of thought and within the framework of epochal ruptures in intellec- tual history does Dionysus awaken, as it were, to himself and become a more reasoning mode of thought ? condition of alertness inspired by dangers, which no longer represents anything but is rather the unmediated ? of the
Does this suggest merely a variation on Heidegger's thought, which has not yet decided between parody and paraphrase? One would have to say instead that Heidegger has transposed Nietzsche's parody of philosophy into an unauthorized melancholic key. There is everything to indicate that this time the farce preceded the melancholic version and that Heidegger's parody of Nietzsche is a more se- rious offense against the rules of art than the droll ? It is a parody in place of a ? philosophy was in its infancy, who would have thought that it would someday bring forth something like this? But there should be no panic among Heidegger's adoring ? That The Birth of Tragedy can be read as we have read it already presupposes the alternatives ? that Heideg- ger's earnest thinking out has won by means of Nietzsche's impulse to criticize
? ? ? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 57
and the dramaturgical freedom we have assumed in our reading of The Gay Science is one of which Heidegger was the coconqueror. Nietzsche's playfulness becomes evident only in contrast to Heidegger's seriousness. But what permeates the seriousness and jocularity is an epochal mutation of con- sciousness, the consequences of which become immeasurable once Nietzsche has entered his postmetaphysical period ? mutation that cuts like a century-long awakening into an era of thought and that counteracts its dramatic ? He who is lucky enough to be able, because of the modest organization of his intellect, to dismiss this as mere irrationalism should stay asleep for a while ? an unusual task awaits those who have awakened early.
This task begins with this still-painful denunciation of Socrates that gapes forth in Nietzsche's book like an open wound. Nietzsche disguises himself here as a freethinker well schooled in the best tradition of the Enlightenment who is striking down a father of the church with the momentum of his anticlerical fury. Socrates, the father of the theoretical ? Socrates, the archdogmatist of human self-improvement through mere reason! Socrates, the intellectual mixer of poi- sons and demon of a negative enlightenment! Socrates, the unmusical barbarian of thought who, in his furor of reason, no longer conceives of tragedy as a mis- fortune but rather as a "problem," and who no longer understands that life is above all else a process of ? ? not an object for self-reflexive
With him, the decline of tragic consciousness begins, and phi- losophy enters into an age of theoretical optimism, a term that is merely another name for the most insipid Dionysian obliviousness.
Listen to the tone of these reproaches! Nietzsche is not protesting against the abrupt invasion of the scientific intellect into Greek thought, which occurred in the brief interim between the appearance of Socrates and the work of Aristotle. He objects to the un-Dionysian, unartistic, theoretical self-misrepresentation of philosophy in the persons of those who ? ? its greatest rep-
He does not intend to forgive Socrates for having destroyed the unity of art and philosophy that had lent its depth to an older way of thinking and was informed by Dionysus, and which could be rediscovered in a new way of thinking. The Birth of Tragedy therefore does not limit itself to an anti-Socratic tirade, and certainly not to a mere denunciation of philosophy. In publishing his
Nietzsche intended to point the way to a future potential of an art-enriched thought that has been reborn through the spirit of Dionysus. Ecce philosophus! Dionysus philosophos!
In this early book, Nietzsche has already initiated a radical restylization of the philosophical intellect. Even in his great reprimand of Socrates, his intention is to save the thinker from his merely theoretical obsession. " I f philosophy is art if the philosopher is possibly only a clever he-goat in a state of postor- giastic then the concerns of Dionysus are not lost theoretically. Two
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 58 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
alternatives are available, through which the he-goat could dispense with his the- oretical ? has taken both into ? The theoretical So- crates could be rehabilitated through Dionysus as a ? or as a
i n g " Socrates.
The first path had already been offered to the ancient Socrates, if the legend is correct, by his demon ? this time spoke to him not to dissuade him, as he usually did, but to challenge him: "Socrates, make ? For Nietzsche, this meant that a philosopher could be forgiven for anything except for being musi- cally deficient. However, to the extent that Socrates represented the incarnation of a concept-weaving unmusicality, he really did lead philosophy in a direction that was unforgivable. Nietzsche does not, however, view this false step as irre- versible. Had not Schopenhauer, in his metaphysics of music, already broken through the wall that divided the philosophical universe from the musical one? Was not Wagner a living example of the fact that it was possible to unite the genius of music with the tragically ideal in earlier doctrines of truth? ? above all else, was not Nietzsche himself already involved in testing a new union of the divided spheres?
As far as the "raving" Socrates was concerned (a figure who would assume a significance as great as it was clandestine in Nietzsche's later writing), he need only read what Diogenes hawked to Laertius in his Lives and Thoughts of Famous Philosophers through his namesake from Sinope. Here we read Sokrates mainomenos; the phrase was coined by no less than Plato. And what could be read beyond this ? collection of anecdotes on a capricious, malicious, life-drenched doctrine of wisdom that refused to constitute a
enough to offer Nietzsche, the artist-theoretician who despaired of theoretical thought, advice he should never forget. This would all point to the trace of the almost physical untheoretical spirituality of the character type that was Diony-
and yet
In future writings, Nietzsche will mention his ancient source only with an
averted gaze. Only with the protection of a psychological and moralistic incog- nito can he succeed in following the ancient trail (Spur) and in profiting from
to a degree that would exceed anything ? "Something cynical, per- haps; something ? ? ? 2, p. 375) will now come into play in all of his works.
Nietzsche's discretion here is easy to understand. By openly establishing a connection with the irreverent bravura of the "cynical writers" (he refers to as we will ? in The Birth of Tragedy in the course of his criticism of the Platonic dialogue as the equivalent of the novel form for ideas), he would
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? have disavowed his stance of tragic, aristocratic
me eternal royal child ? ? had invested so to make two admissions at once, when the one ifestation of the Dionysian ? already difficult
in which h e - He would have had there was a nontragic man- He only succeeded in
? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 59
making the second admission right at the very end: he admitted that there might also be a plebeian form of ? For, in spite of everything, there appeared within the earliest form of "kynicism" an indespicable plebeian gallantry as the
of the poor scoundrel -- indeed, as in Crates, there appears in poverty as a chosen way of life a rare sovereignty. More than any individual ? there is a wild sense for the price of freedom, and he would experience the denunciation of the lies of comfort and the beautiful antics of the middle ? In the primary representations of ? an impressive denial of the authority of man- made laws is ? in the decision to submit himself without cul- tural trimmings to the majesty of the physis. Here the term physis does not mean the paragon of the object world or the gearwork of an obdurate cosmic causality; it is to a much greater extent the guarantor of an existence that does not defer to any reification, and is thus esteemed as the physical foundation of ecstasy, of which the freedom speeches of the philosophers communicate only the diluted infusion. The ancient speech of physis was not a tyrannically objectifying cult of physicalism, but rather a ways and means through which the consciousness of a
gnosis of the body could express itself.
A ll of this had too much in common with Nietzsche's own philosophical and psychological tendencies to have eluded him for long. Indeed,
together with certain rudimentary elements within the stoical Heraclitic move-
the last and most anonymous form of ancient doctrines of wisdom, and thus of a form of thought that conforms to the play of forces and the disso- nant consonance of physis, without losing itself in the phantasms of philosophical doctrines of the beyond. Let the depraved ghosts worry about transcendence and spin out their "relationship" with ? The consciousness of the ecstatic physicists (Physiker) refuses to ascend into the transcendent worlds of the phi- losophers because for them there exists no transcendence that remains within physis and that values it highly enough. He who wanted to establish a taphysical mode of thought, as Nietzsche undertook to do in the strongest mo- ments of his thought and in his whole literary guerrilla war on the great truths -- he had to take up the trail of the last ? especially if he was to prove that he was a Greek scholar who had read his Laertius better than anyone else.
But what does it mean to take up the trail of a consciousness that, because it lacks the will to theory and does not believe in the vital significance of specula- has left hardly a trace behind it? What constitutes the trail of this conscious- ness, which has disappeared almost without a trace? Surely not these few state- ments by the "kynics" on the cosmos as the home of man or on nature as the measure of action? Presuming even the slightest standard for a theoretically de- veloped capacity to question, these statements must be found lacking. The do-
minion of "kynicism" lies elsewhere ? its habitus, its mood, its infatuation with the current, in its style. This oscillates wherever it is authentically
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 60 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
died, between didactic pantomime and satirical "checkered ? --satyr plays of the body and the ? Thus the concept of literature comes into play here for the second time with a specific ? ? Nietzsche violates the rules of his profession with his brightly checkered ? of philosophy, no dif- ferently than the way in which he had, during his initial appearance on stage, already strayed from the framework of what was permissible within the
of philology. It was precisely in doing this that he ? surreptitiously, but also with a decisiveness that leaves no room for any ? up the thread of that which has stretched from the "cynical writers" of antiquity through countless entanglements into modernity.
The Gay Science begins to spin its vestments from this thread; it will soon openly speak its name in the title of a subsequent book. It will speak first with the best kynical psychologizing of the "human, ? of the petty, ma- lignant truths of the commonplace that the blind gaze of theoretical sight has al- ready overlooked. Without literature, no truth; without psychology, no alertness; without "cynicism," no freedom to call things by their names.
And yet one should not delude oneself about the status of Nietzsche's psychol- ogy. However much it flirts with the perspective of the natural sciences and the stupidity of British positivism; however much it purports to flee into the Apol- lonian and plays out the role of a cold presence of mind in the face of former ecstasies, this psychology has, at its impulsive core, a long since been not a the- oretical undertaking but instead a dramatic one. It organizes Dionysians of civil- ity, and excesses of disillusionment. Dionysus cool. Nietzsche wrote in retro- spect:
But he who is related to me by the height of desire thereby experiences the true ecstasies of learning. ? ? ? There is absolutely no prouder and at the same refined type of book ? ? ? here and there they achieve the height of what can be achieved on earth, cynicism: one has to conquer them with the most tender fingers as well as with the bravest fists.
6, p.
302)
It is the same Dionysian impulse that gives the author an unparalleled under- standing of the psychodramatic tissue of ancient tragedy and, at the same time, opens his eyes to the Dionysians of the commonplace, the satyr plays of the
and the circles of hell of the ? As an aesthetician as well as a psychologist, Nietzsche becomes the mouthpiece of a consequential Dionysian invasion of the theoretical and moralistic culture of modern bourgeois society.
It is true that, in his twofold presence as orgy participant and psychologist, as Dionysian hero and critical rogue, Nietzsche brings to light a character who is anything but straightforward. He is modern, with all the implications of that term, and as such does not omit the self-contradiction and ambivalence that
? ? ? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
belong to ? He is decadent; a man who has been seriously wounded by culture, in all its resultant ramifications ? most valuable of which appear openly unequivocal with time. As E. M. Cioran has correctly observed, "His misere was therapeutic for us; he opened up the era of ? His was, indeed, a ? ? and yet nothing could prevent him from discovering in himself deeper reserves of healthiness than anyone would have credited him with, considering his wound. His laughter was unfounded; the experience of his life did not justify it. Perhaps because of this he was authorized as no one else had been to state that pleasure within the context of sorely tested exist-
a deeper phenomenon than In any case, he had, as
intellect, discovered something that was uncomplicated within a condition of complexity ? halcyon cheerfulness with which he veiled the news of the terri- ble truth. Cheerfulness is the courtesy of the
Even now, the Gay Science is still the most polite way to openly discuss the unbearable elements of existence. There is no way to retaliate against the clever idiots who, because of the light tone of the work, conclude that the thought con- tained therein is in itself ? with the beautiful statement with which Nietzsche has characterized the relationship between the philosopher and those among his public who are merely clever and inexperienced:
Every deep thinker fears being understood more than he fears being misunderstood. The latter wounds his vanity, perhaps, but the former wounds his heart, his sense of compassion, which always responds, "Ah, why do the likes of you want to suffer as I do? " ? 5, p.
Nietzsche paid a high price for discovering that Dionysus not only manifests him- self as a suffering hero and an ecstatic chorus, but can also plunge into the human fray as a psychologist, itinerant mystic, accursed philosopher, and stylist. When he escaped into the nonidealistic, he lost the sympathies of the ? and thus let fall the most important external supports for his confident self-aware-
Anyone who studies Nietzsche's inner conflicts during the period of his sep- aration from the cult of Wagner and from the constraints of the academic chair in Basel will find it hard to avoid speaking of a social ? a categorical existential and philosophical separation. For those who have entered into the psychonaut-
circle, a social death is inevitable. Only it can bring to an end the interplay between the collective and the personal lies of which unite so gladly around common values: I praise you, you praise both lie. But he who is expe-
a social death because he has begun to find himself can no longer be helped by anything general or by any external ? Whoever believes that he is engaged in real thought without having first peered into the abyss of his
singularity is merely trying to convince himself that he is
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 62 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
dreams a conformist's dream, and wishes it were the dream of a critical con- sciousness. He who really thinks is condemned to an isolation that compels him to begin anew and to fulfill himself; henceforth, there will no longer be any "tra-
but only a rediscovery of himself in affinities and constellations. During his "kynical," ? knowledge-criticizing years, Nietz- sche forged ahead into an isolation that was constitutive of a mode of thought oriented toward the terrible truth. Only through the discovery of a positive and liberating isolation could the pleasurable-painful (lustschmerzlich) prophecy of the Dionysian ? free itself from its involvement in the idealistic fraud of the Wagner cult. Because isolation exonerated him from all consider- ations, Nietzsche was quickly able to free himself from the false classicist man- nerisms that still cling to his book on tragedy. Redemption from the idols created space for the implementation of harder, purer values. From now on, it was a matter of Voltaire versus Wagner, romantic esprit versus a deep-rooted Teutonic clumsiness, the freethinker versus the religious fanatic, a serene nihilism versus a neoidealist self-indulgence in higher worlds, the malicious tongue versus a beautiful foaming at the mouth, the shadowless phenomena of the south versus the northern lights of cynicism, the "cynical" music of Carmen versus Wagner's oppressive Venusberg, the truth of the small energetic stab versus the lie of great
style.
One thing cannot be denied: Nietzsche was profound in his descent into the isolation of his new precision. From this point on we have known more about the consanguinity of cruelty and profundity, but also more about that of the precision of good ? precision nota bene of musicians and artists, not of admin- istrators of knowledge and those who count mistakes, who confuse devotion to their inhibitions with precision.
He who shoots off theorems like arrows and gives out bites like statements must believe that he can rely on what he is saying having an effect on the pain/pleasure scale, index veri, for the author as well as for the public. Nietzsche practiced this belief as only a true believer can; his credo demanded that there should be no pronouncements of truth without consequences -- and if these consisted of the perishing of the perceiver because of that through which his will to truth had overextended ? fiat Veritas, pereat vita. This outlook on the possible adver- sity inherent in the correspondence between knowledge and effect explains why Nietzsche's credo suggests more than merely an overblown artist's concern for effect, and certainly not a reduction of philosophy to rhetoric.
Nietzsche's concept of style is based on a condensation of all speech into the pleasurable/painful physical foundation of knowledge. In his pronouncements on the truth itself begins to become concrete ? in Lenin's sense, which ultimately confused truth with grenades and allowed its concreteness to atrophy into a strategic brutality called ? Rather, it is concrete in the sense of a
? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 63
aesthetic ? return of the true into what can be perceived as true, a re- newed and deepened investigation of knowledge and sensuality. Nietzsche's writ- ing provides the prototype for a modern philosophical orality. What increasingly takes the upper hand in his pronouncements on truth ? in addition to the musical character of his lecture in general, the bittersweet pleasure he finds in taking the
into his mouth ? der Welt) as something he both loves and hates; the wild joy in biting and being bitten without which the Diony- sians of this divination would not possess a physical foundation in the body. One can also say that, in Nietzsche, the sense of taste once again takes on a philo- sophical dimension as the most intimate of the universal senses. Philosophy reaches back into its somatic sources; the world is initially experienced through the
For this reason, Nietzsche's critique of knowledge and psychology
larly that of the middle ? not comprise a soul-soothing theory, even though it does borrow from the grammatical structure and philosophical vocab- ulary of such a theory. His "theory" is an oral guerrilla campaign (guerilla). It is true that his philosophical, psychocritical writings are presented in a glittering Apollonian prose that, with its malicious simplicity, feigns contempt for any merely theoretical complexity. But these writings, with their forced rationalism and positivistic ? should be read as oral Dionyses in They are the bites, screams, and leaps ? into language ? a psyche com- pelled to communicate its cool state of delirium alongside the constant arrival
of the world.
Nietzsche is trying out a way of speaking that gushes forth from the speaker so
quickly, so precisely, so dryly, so ? and so fatally that, for a moment, the difference between life and speech seems to have disappeared. In the mo- ments of the highest oral intensity, that which is said is consumed in the act of saying it; all representations are reduced to ashes in the act of being expressed. There are no longer any semantics, only gesticulations; no longer any ideas, only tropes of energy; no longer any higher meaning, only temporal stimulation; no logos, only orality. There is no longer anything holy, only heartbeats; no longer any spirit, only breath; no longer a god, only the movements of a
Who can wonder at the fact that, up until this day, this language has been in search of those who understand it? It is the language of the postmetaphyical human being, and perhaps only a sort of children's language as ? return to a joyful orality at the heights of culture?
A hundred years after Nietzsche, it now and again seems as if an almost popular coming to terms with this singular philosopher were possible. Perhaps a majority of the aesthetic successes and the important philosophical self-representations of the present day are only the fulfillment of what was announced in his work. One indication of this among countless many is the excessive corroboration that
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 64 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
Nietzsche's verdict on the "cynical" Carmen has found among the mass public today. In addition, we could also count the return of opera, the renaissance of pathos, the discovery of a second misfortune ? a general obsession
the physical, the wholesale renunciation of ? apparitions, the irresistible privileging of taste over ethics, and the unnerving vacillation of souls between isolation and consolidation ? between the effort to separate and the desire to unify, between the hell of difference and that of identity. A l l of these are Nietzsche's landscapes, and we inhabit these landscapes, not because we "also" share his problems, but because his problems and the language in which he deals with them increasingly guide and overshadow our own problematizing.
Taste instead of ? will it lead? What is taste, anyway? How can such an unfathomable quantity take on meaning in intellectual terms? And what if this is not the proper way to phrase the question? What if all systems of signi- fication ? have always been merely systems of
ways and means of translating the aroma of the world into linguistic articula- tions? Could it not be that all metaphysical doctrines have only served to coat the bitter pill of life in the sweet confection of an assigned meaning? ? ? you tell me, friends, that there is no disputing of taste and tasting? But all of life is a dispute of taste and tasting" ? ? Zarathustra, "On Those Who Are
Have not all the great methods for organizing the world been merely manipulations of taste (it is no coincidence that the words "cosmology" and "cosmetics" have the same root), and all philosophical statements only per- fumed attempts to stifle the unbearable fumes of the universal sewer in the effort involved in conceptualization? Psychology tells us that taste is the most intimate, the most universal sense of ? and Heidegger tells us that moods explain the world. The preacher Salomonis went into greater detail: woman is bitter, he said, and Nietzsche shared in this taste ? questioning the authority of his biblical predecessor.
Nietzsche's exceptional position among the modern philosophical authors is grounded above all, in my opinion, on the fact that, like almost no other thinker before him, he focused his reflections exclusively on the interplay between mood and taste. He was a philosophizing stylist because he consciously adapted his writing to the modi of orality. Speaking with an extraordinary intensity of moods, keys, variations of taste, levels of volume and tempi, he was the first philosopher to grasp that language itself, style itself, and expression itself ? nothing other than lifeless pseudo-Platonisms, from which the remains of life were fleeing. As a consequence, the expression of truth in itself came to a halt for him. How truths were expressed was from then on their own affair, and was relative to the mood (Stimmung) of the instrument upon which they were ? excitable body. The reverse side of this insight would read as follows: Eliminate the excitability of the body, and you will win one "truth. "
? ? ? ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES ? 65
Wearing the mask of Zarathustra, Nietzsche was the one who, as the first modernist and without having been a ? came upon a truth that wanted to be danced. He was also the one who knew that truth could be expressed in laughter. A truth-through-tears (Wahr-Weinen) had also confided in him in moments of Dionysian emotion, without taking into consideration the soldier in him, who preferred to find the truth contained in "holding fast" and standing his ground. And what could be said about the ? ? that presented itself as an accompanying symptom of the severe ? headaches that plagued the flayed body of the writer who had so little flair for lying?
Nietzsche developed two modes for expressing the truth to a greater extent than any of the others: truth-through-biting ? and truth-through- singing ? both of which are the ultimate stagings of an oral truth that has been mediated by taste and mood. Truth-through-biting is the prototyp- ical gesture of a psychological writing of the "kynical" type of unmasking, which oscillates between a biting to death that causes him to
through ("The cattle among my friends, mere Germans, by your leave ? ? ? ? or through deprivation (did he not refer to Lou Salome, after the "disappointment," as that "withered, dirty, foul-smelling little ape, with her false ? ? the desirously precise, cruel and tender nibbling at subjects with which mere contemplation would accomplish nothing in the face of a sen- sual hunger for knowledge. Nietzsche knew truth-through-singing as a gesture that legitimately appeared with anyone who had learned, through great suffering, to cherish the value of good moments. "Singing is for those who are convalesc- ing; the healthy man prefers to A man who had to bite through entire worlds of constraints and deficiencies ? man who was too sensitive, who wanted too much, but who was also like an eternal convalescent, so happy to be able to celebrate in song a few great recoveries, Nietzsche exercised in his work a body of writing that brought to light, between the small bite and the great
between laconism and the dithyramb, an unmistakable individuality.
This wonderfully mobile and well-trained body of language executed "leaps and handstands" (letter of January 25, 1882), which even today could not be performed by anyone who was theoretically motionless and on ice, even if he published fat-bodied theories of aesthetic experience. But Nietzsche's capers would be fundamentally misrepresented if we were to see in them only vigorous asides to serious questions of truth. In them was ? as it was
his flights of pathos ? Dionysian subversion of the esprit de serieux, with which the modern world, with its theoretical and moralistic dominions of senti- is leadenly weighed down. In his physicality of language (Sprachkbrper- he wanted to announce a new ethics (Phooey! But do we still react this today? ) of thought. Nietzsche's holy lesson in behavior is recommended as be a hygienic or dietetic ? a sort of intellectual and spjritual musical ? as a mental gymnastics course for practicing a new pyschophy-
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 66 ? DIONYSUS MEETS DIOGENES
ethics of intensity. Nietzsche knew that there was nothing more improper than a lack of energy that appears disguised as a ? He sensed that there was nothing more suspect than a fear of the truth that passed itself off as a critical consciousness, and nothing more perverse than an inability to recognize that which confused itself with ? Above ? Nietzsche developed a thoroughly volatile sense for the obscenity of the so-called communication of subjects who are not sufficiently daring in how they express themselves; how he hated the phenomenon which George Grosz later caricatured in his Republican
functionaries of their own selves, these display-window mannequins of their own ? He uncovered the vampirism inherent not only
in the Christian ethic but, to an even greater extent, in that of a retical culture.
I am certain that, in the long run, this will prove to be the more important of Nietzsche's reassessments of values. The "unmasking" of Christianity as movement of ressentiment and as an epochal deadly assault may prove insignif- icant when compared to the uncovering of the physicality of thought. This is not a mode of thought that concentrates on the body, and not a ? of the physical against the intellectual; rather, it is a physical intellectuality in which the drama of a postmetaphysics appears. Therefore it is always an intelligence "on the verge" of something ? intelligence in transit, on stage, in the mood. It does not cling to the subject as if it were private property, but thrusts it
like a provocation and a revelation. Perhaps in this context the limitations of the old dumbstruck Enlightenment will become blindingly ? clear as repre- senting those of an attempt to limit intelligence like an active subjective property to a defined center of a ? risk-free character, instead of an understanding that comes into play only as a dramatic and procedural quantity ? the illusion of the propertied individual that has distorted every aspect of life in modernity.
