Possessed by a god

it seems to me that the commonest blogs of all are narcissistic, crowing ‘look at me!’ in every post. It’s an unkind assessment, for almost by definition we mostly all do write about ourselves – even when obliquely through the mirror of something we are possessed by. Still, for most blogs I bother to read, while the individual is very much present, we see them sideways as they are showing us something. It is their reflection we focus on – and that reflection because it offers an perspective that interests.

Numerically speaking, most blogs, I’m afraid, seem to be more preoccupied with a pretty straight-forward shout “LOOK AT ME!” and precious little material to reflect on.

May 18, 2011 12:28 am

As Bryan said a blog is an open format that anyone could put to any use. Those who love to write can do so, others may just post pictures. Some use it to chat, some to discuss ideas, some to get an ego boost by knocking down ideas posted by others and so on, others use it to compalin or seek an affirmation of their own view and experiences, some use it to spread news or more often views on life or the news etc. etc.

Some use it as a replacement for daily conversation in a club or pub

Wonder if someone had done reasearch to classify blog into types and find out percentages of what type is what percentage.

I think every act of creation says ‘look at me’ in some way or another. But this has to be balanced against the fact that every product of autobiography is an act of self-concealment, as much as, if not more than, a self-revelation. It doesn’t bother me how narcissistic anyone is, because I’m not usually forced to engage with that person. So when someone shouts “look at me!” in a pathetically egotistical way, I might amuse myself and look, for each person is a work of art in his own estimation, and I see myself in everyone. In Nietzsche’s last work, Ecce Homo: how one becomes what one is, his chapter headings include “Why I am so wise”, “Why I am so clever”, “Why I write such excellent books”, and “Why I am a destiny”——self-affirmations which may be too much for many readers; but he had to summarize his life’s work quickly, as his irrecoverable mental breakdown was only weeks away. Some will say his self-affirmation was well-justified. But I feel the necessity to be kind, to myself and others. Not everyone can be a Nietzsche.

I still have nothing to say about the god or almost-god I mentioned.

I hope this responds to all the comments above!

Ashok, you and Nietzsche have chosen one another as adversaries. It is no accident. But that does not make him evil. Hitler loved his dog Blondi, a German Shepherd, or as we used to call them in England, an Alsatian. There may be some in the world who don’t like those dogs, in consequence, but I think they would need another reason too.

Nietzsche set out to attack various ideas and institutions. He caused a great deal of offence to those whose cherished beliefs were threatened. He did it to help liberate mankind from the ill effects of those structures of thought.

Sorry, Vincent, I couldn’t pass that one up. It’s not often that one gets the opportunity for a joke that’s both perverse AND historical.

My impression so far has been that persons who disagree with his ideas are happier and peaceful persons as compared to those who do and therefore I tend to lean towards the position I have on him, but as I said I just do not care for his work and his sort of ideas and any talk of him is like trying to talk about God to a diehard atheist or trying to describe the flavors various Belgian lace works to a cat. This cat could not care less.

I looked up briefly google as you suggested very kindly and courteously (in a polite manner most unlike Nietzsche’s admirers) and found someone close to him say that the greatest fallacy about him was that he lost his mind towards the last stages of his life. According to him he was a half mind all along.

If we are going to look into it more philosophically, we see that it’s our duty to further our own interests, because we cannot rely upon anyone else to do it for us. There are forms of altruism and self-sacrifice which cause their practitioners sickness and premature death–which may be praised as ‘martyrdom’. If we think that is virtuous, it is our choice–a choice which Nietzsche criticised, and identified as being infected by Christianity.

I doubt if there is anyone who has conferred benefit upon the world who has not acted from self-interest. What we object to, I think, is stupidity in the pursuit of self-interest. If someone, to get our attention focused on him, makes us laugh, as a comedian, or cry, as a tragedian, we don’t accuse him of narcissism or any of those other words.

If someone gets rich and becomes a philanthropist in order not to leave his money to the son he doesn’t trust, and has his name plastered all over buildings and charities established in perpetuity, we don’t think of him as a narcissistic soulless monster. We celebrate the good he has done. (I am not referring to any particular philanthropist. I don’t know the life stories of any of them.)

I suggest that the ones we accuse of being selfish and so on are the ones whose behaviour is stupidly annoying at one end of the scale, or fatally toxic at the other.

We don’t care about a person’s self-preoccupation or otherwise. We only care about what he gives to us—or steals from us.

I don’t have to choose between selfishness or altruism. It is civilisation which has driven the wedge between self and other, by emphasising the separation of the individual, and making it possible for an individual to flourish at the expense of others, without giving anything back.

But seen rightly, there is no conflict, and I find my individual fulfilment as an active part of the All.

Right on Vincent. I completely agree with that. I hope you remember that when you visit other blogs.

In any case it is a worthy discussion here. Thanks for the post that has prompted it.

It is not just in Christianity, selfless service and altruism produces great joy and evolution to a person of any religion and is praised allove albeit I agree that it is difficult for ordinary souls to rise above self interest, however to justify it is to be the devils advocate in my view.

If it was not for the selfless service of those that preceded us we would not be enjoying whatever we do today including peace and security in our homes and country

well said, Vincent – and as I attempted to say, the boundary lines are thin.

We are all human, so what we have to discuss is in that mutual zone of what makes us human. We talk about what we know; to do otherwise is folly. So we talk about ourselves, our experiences. To me, the goal of writing though, is primarily to find a way to connect.

So Brian, talking about a toothache in a humorous way is certainly about connecting, since there are few of us who’ve escaped that experience!

Perhaps what I’m objecting to is not only the stupidity, but the self-aggrandizing character of many blogs.

Bahh! For me, in the end I write because I write, have always written, will always do so. Letters, journals, creative attempts…. and for the last several years, blogs too. It’s a circular thing. I write blogs because at the moment it interests me more than some of the other ways to write.

Perhaps in the end all I’m doing is complaining about boring writers, about those who don’t seek to entertain or connect or instruct, but simply to strut. Strutting fails to interest me… unless it’s on a grandiose scale, and then it’s a morbid and unhealthy fascination, like watching a train wreck.

As for bad blogs, it can be hard to infer the author’s intention from the outside. The mortal sin, I think would be a failure to be interesting or to “connect” with the reader. If the blog appeals to you, it appeals regardless of the writer’s motives for blogging. If a blog appeals to no one then it may be the case that:

A.) The writer understands that they have to provide content worth reading, and they just fail miserably.

B.) The writer doesn’t understand the issue, thinks the world revolves around them, and thinks that people owe it to them to read any trivial banalities that they happened to post. In short, they make no effort to connect. If they write about about a trip to the dentist, they just say, “I went to the dentist” and expect people to find that fact alone interesting. The do nothing to make the experience relatable or entertaining.

C.) They flat out don’t care. They treat a blog as a personal journal visible to the world. If people read it, they read it. If they don’t they don’t. Still others might blog solely for a small audience of personal acquaintances and they have no ambition to take things to a broader level or make it relatable outside this small circle.

It’s all hard to tell, right? At the very least, it would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

“…for each person is a work of art in his own estimation.” Yes, we seem to be in a constant flow of a sort of ‘work in progress,’ each finding our way. I must say too, it is always interesting to watch ‘ego’ defenses at play because whether we realize it or not, when we jump to defensive mode, he is always near. Of course, there is good arguing, debate, etc., (healthy ‘ego’) but then there is the act of feeling that we somehow have to defend our beliefs, opinions, the very things that sometimes define us perhaps without us realizing it unless kept in check. I think at this point, I’m thinking out loud. I tend to do that on your blogs 🙂

p.s.
That is a great photo of you, Vincent!

I have now seen three. His profile picture looks stern and aggressive, and arrogant. For a while he changed it one where he was smiling. I did not like that one bit. It was not the Vincent I know.

This photo combines the two gentlemen, perhaps into a real human being.

I think this photo is probably the real Vincent.