Will to Nothingness

N. talks a lot about nihilism and mentions the 'will to nothingness'. I more or less know what Nihilism is but I decided to look it up on Wikepedia. It said that Nihilists generally assert most of the following:
- There is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator
- a "true morality" does not exist
- secular ethics are impossible

I think that this way of thinking wouldnt be so hopeless if you cut out the last part. I think that N. might agree because the last problem traps people into having only two options. a) believe in a higher power b)no higher power, no ethics, no meaning.
The true morality bit I don't think is that desperate of a problem, because subjective, relative morality could work just as well.

Opposition to Opposites cont'd (Religion)

Relating back to Nietzsche, when he says that God is the father of evil. I'm not sure that necessarily makes God the father of good. Maybe he did mean that too, I'm not sure. Nietzsche was notoriously anti-christian. It is interesting that Nietzsche's father was a pastor. Also, I read (http://goinside.com/00/6/nietzsche.html), that Nietzsche wrote a poem to "the unknown God", at 20, saying "I want to know you -- even to serve you." But Nietzsche became one of the greatest critics of religion.

This is from the essay I linked to:

"The criticism of empathy and love Nietzsche challenged some of the main thoughts within Christianity in a very concrete way. Sometimes he seems to admire Jesus, and claims that the church made a picture of Jesus which is not veridical. He is skeptical to the church and its ideology, and claimed that the existential perversion which, according to him, Christianity represents, does not stem from Jesus himself, but from the church. According to Nietzsche there has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross. Nevertheless the teachings of Jesus that we find in the Gospels, are attacked by Nietzsche.

The Russian author, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, claimed that pity was the essence of Christianity. In Matthew we read about Jesus that "When he saw the multitudes, he was moved by compassion for them." (Matt 9:36) Nietzsche was critical to the ideal of compassion in Christianity. In Anti-Christ he wrote that "Christianity is the religion of pity." The German thinker, claimed that pity had a depressive effect, and that this quality is opposed to those emotions and attitudes which lead to the promotion of life. "

The Opposition to Opposites

In the works we have done up till now, we've talked a lot about opposites. The basic idea being: if you define something, you've defined its opposite. "Is and Isn't produce each other" or When you recognize X, unX is born. It sounds nice, but it's not sitting well with me. All these clear cut boundaries, black v. white definitions. . . the world is full of gray area, abstracts. You can try and pigeonhole all ideas and concepts systematically. . . but it just won't work. There's an endless series of exceptions , lines are blurring everywhere and it can leave you more lost than when you started.

Take "love". We say the opposite of Love is Hate. Really? So unLove is Hate? I thought unLove was the absence of love. So is that it's opposite? The lack of love? Well that's not very polar. . .but wait. . .Hate lacks love. . .so are they both opposites? What makes "hate" the opposite of love anyway? What are we talking about, are we talking about passionate anger, or something evil, how extreme should you go? If you talk about them as only emotions (I'm not sure you can define them like that), then what? You can't use the word in the definition so it starts getting hazy. Hate is angrier than love I guess? Where to from here?

I'm not even sure if I know exactly what "opposite" means when talking about abstract ideas. It's even hard with concrete ideas. . .the opposite of 2 is -2. . . or is it un2. . . which would be 0?. . . Maybe thats a stretch, but if you go back to the abstract. . .what if you get away from the easily polarized concepts (love/hate, happiness/sadness) and get more vague.

What I am opposing here, is not the basic idea that when you define one thing, you define what it is not. I am opposing that a) all these things can be defined. and b) the idea of a concrete opposite

We try to apply our systems of measurement and our categorization on everything. . .
but sometimes you have to just step back. . . take a breath. . . and at least acknowledge that the world is not black and white, sometimes human expression isn't capable of expressing what we try to define, not in the way some want to anyway.

Compliment

Compliment is probably my favorite poem by Rives. It's meaningful, has a really cool rhythm, is hysterical, and makes me want to watch it again (which i have many times now). I thought it was filled with awesome ideas; patchwork bath, fireworks for poor folks, why men and women's shirts button on opposite sides, weird with a capital We, giggle with lips closed like you've got a secret little moon in your mouth, sunflower growing in the courtyard of an old folks home (you mean things to people on a daily basis)

I thought that the climax was effective, and really caught my attention, especially with the beatboxer's pause and then sort of explosion of sound imitation:

I said once Ohhh I wish i had a picture
and you said Ohhh I wish that you and I had hot sex
you gave me a pedicure and elves showed up at our doorstep
with a pizza to tell us Jesus just built a treehouse in the backyard
and he'd like to meet us both so hop in hot shot.

I love when the beat boxer (Joshua) takes the harmonica and beatboxes into it, and how, seemingly (although it was probably planned) spontaneously Rives compared how pretty the woman ("you") was to Joshua's solo.

Rives cont'd

I started watching more of his poems, and they're all amazing! Some of them are hilarious (especially Compliment w/ beatboxer, Babble, Kite).

I like that the rhyme is never forced, a lot of times, even though I know its coming, I don't expect it because its so natural. I like that I don't have to wonder, like you sometimes do with some people, 'where is he going with this?', because he has an air about him that makes you want to trust him and assures you that everything will fit together.

Rives

I thought Rives was really cool to listen to, it reminded me a lot of stand up comedy. I've actually heard a few comedians use a style similar to his in certain shows. His presentation is really engaging. He has a strong control of his language, but it seems relaxed and free. You get the feeling you get when someone is guiding you who makes whatever it is seem effortless, so you trust them and you and have to worry about where their going. You can just listen to him. The rhythm and rhyme makes everything more powerful. He strikes me as someone who gave up on trying to mold what he wants to say, and just says it. I can admire that in a person, and a performer.