Reflection on Nietzsche’s Query on the Evolution of Moral Concepts

“Every table of values, every ‘Thou shalt’ known to history or ethnology, requires first a physiological investigation and interpretation, rather than a psychological one; and every one of them needs a critique on the part of medical science. The question: what is the value of this or that table of values and “morals”? should be viewed from the most diverse perspectives; for the problem “value for what?” can not be examined too subtly” - Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals

the prompt to this essay is a question Nietzsche asks at the end of the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morals: What light does linguistics, and especially the study of etymology throw on the evolution of moral concepts?

Jungs Etymological Error

Since Nietzsche, intellectuals have developed the observance of “semiotics”, an understanding of language as a system of signs which compose societal strata which are then imposed onto the mode-of-operation of subjects. Etymology, the study of the origin and historical development of words, coincides with semiotics as it seeks to contextualize the meaning of signs by ascertaining specific words and their local usage; semiotics can be thought of as the “soft” study of language, the manifestation of signs and the fluctuation of their meaning, while etymology is the “hard” or more empirically focused study which seeks to standardize language based on historical evidence. The meaning of language can only really be understood by the entire model which a language system commonly relays to its subjects, likewise, the experience of a subject is essentially understood by the contextualized struggle within their respective sphere. Jung, whose system of thought grades societal symbols based on varying degrees of sublimation, erred in his rigor overemphasis on the phenomenological immediacy of signs in the symbolic order, and neglected the etymological analysis which provides that valuation of signs is denoted by aristocratic, bourgeois entities throughout history (instead valuing signs according to his theory of consciousness) through their institutions of power. Without the incorporation of this analysis, Jung’s symbology is denied any bearing on reality and is instead a distorted reflection of the nature of hierarchic symbolic order, resulting in an ontology which ultimately coalesces into an array of simulacra for the subject to project onto the substitute horizon. Jungs psychiatry is one that has helped define the liberal strategy of pacifying the subject and offering ontology-for-subscription—the subjects psychic and existential distress is thought to be a fragmenting of the mind from the volatility of unconscious factors, it is the same kind of individualist-attempting ontology todays pseudo-Stoics lay their sophistry with. All the emphasis is put on the psyche, the individual locus of activity, while simulation, the Other and especially ruling entities are adjusted within one’s philosophy as objects of convenience. The stoic of the digital age views virtue as the path to success as an achievement-subject, whereas the stoic in truth understands the dynamic of virtue as the only good as nearly sanctifying, in that the process of self-realization is what brings immanence to being. The minor difference in theory which leads to grand distancing from ethical practice between the distorted view and the view in truth is the contextualization which virtue proceeds from: in today’s pseudo-stoicism, the individual is thought of as a data point which is meant to accumulate according to a pattern suited towards the substitute the horizon, and in this existential pacifying the subject is made prone to alienation and submission. In stoicism in truth, which was borne of a self-retaining resistance to the sphere of the ruling class, the individual is understood as a node within the Self that must operate so as to emancipate the spirit of humanity, which can only be done in cooperation between singularities whose MO is concerned with the wellbeing of their kin and of the world moreso than the achievement of external concessions. The sophistry of the achievement subject would bring the kind of argument that actually their achievement farming is indicative of good for society, to which one only needs to tap the sign of etymology.

Bows and Arrows

Linguistics offers the bridge of meaning between etymological and semiotic understandings of language, as it examines the very structure of language, focusing on the directly implied meaning rather than the historical context such as in etymology, or the broader frameworks built on top of language as studied in semiotics. The studies validated in linguistics are what give substance to the composition of works produced in etymology and semiotics. Linguistics, then, is the hard logical proof, the mathematics that affirms language for the subject, and so in the rigor of linguistics one will find a kind of mathematical proof of the existential transgressions of the ruling class, and the corresponding echoing cries and screams of the oppressed. An example from popular culture is the co-opting of revolutionary or liberal slogans by the conservative right-wing sphere, in an attempt to reinforce cultural elements of supremacist ideology which rebrands systemic political issues as a “culture war” that masks the development of mechanisms which siphon the being of the lower classes for the sustenance of the bourgeoisie; colossal wealth hoarding which manufactures and induces poverty, as well as the emergence and dominance of the military-industrial-complex not only foreign but domestically, as the submission of proletariat into enslavement is lyingly upheld by the demonic status quo as natural to the development of society, pacifying reaction to invasive surveillance, profit-as-theft, the neglect of social services (which countries far below US GDP can afford for their populations), the militarization of police and the abuse of the legal system by the government and military, all these oppressive and barbaric psychological, economic, militaristic and covert operations on the working class of the United States are culturally swept aside not by a blind eye, but simply by the periphery of Big Brother. His all-seeing-eye doesn’t instill an orderly and fear-stricken march for the totalitarian state as depicted in the Orwellian fiction, the masses of the virtual era are programmed with an enthusiastic readiness to scramble for the appeasement and approval of Big Brother, rendering the distorted subjects “Shadow” as described by Jung as a concept whose essence cannot even be located within the psyche, rather it would be ascribed from the Other maintained outside the periphery of the ruling class entity. This dynamic can directly be observed by the conservative minded mocking and co-opting of the word “woke”, a slang term originating in AAVE which refers to being cognizant of the truth of systemic issues and oppressive psychological tactics of the supremacist government and their imps. Cognizance of the material reality through the proliferation of capitalist hyperreality requires a certain strength of intellect and spirit that not only cuts through the simulacra but fortifies the ego in the face of such rejection by the status quo that is triggered simply by contemplative stance, no kind of physical ritual is necessary to garner disdain or even hatred from the distorted subject. The conservative, institutionalized subject is simply too pathetic in mind and in body, too cowardly in spirit to methodically realize illusory truth from the capitalist veil, and even if they could muster the strength of spirit, they would evacuate all adjustment and self-destruct under the weight of the new gaze. As a result of this crucial existential weakness, the distorted subject, instead of incorporating a little contemplation, subscribes to ideas rather than properly forming them. This mind-subscription can be properly understood through the right wings co-opting of the Gadsden Flag, originally flown by Commodore Esek Hopkins (who is supposedly the first naval chief in U.S. history). A historic call to arms against oppression (from the movement which birthed the nation, no less) has been twisted to signify a reserving of the proletariats empty hand into the “free market”, a psychological tactic capitalists employ to mask the rulers multi-layered monopoly on the country’s economic sectors, allowing for profit-for-theft and the privatization of the commons. This trend of subtly twisting the context in which a phrase is said to redirect the meaning from a capsule of energy against the ruling class back towards proletariat can be seen in the manner which American public schools teach the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Just as former Catholics can at most recall an Our Father, or parts of the Hail Mary or Nicene Creed, the average citizen educated in public schools can recall the fragment of Martin Luther Kings speech, “I have a dream that one day my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”. The precedent of segregation, to be clear, was a barbaric institution that non-violent activists in the Civil Rights Movement were justified in pacifying their mobilization, the problem with the non-violent current in leftist politics is that it has a temporality which leaves the proletariat defenseless against the gnashing teeth of the ruling classes state apparatus, nonviolence as a strategy has failed to guarantee the human rights of the population, suggesting that the working class cannot rely on a guarantee and will be driven towards securing these rights. Because the Civil Rights Movement as resistance could not defend the working class as a whole, concessions were made in such a way which reintroduced the struggle against capitalism as a racial struggle, which has maimed the American left since the dissolution of radical left organizations via COINTELPRO and it’s legacy. This history is why the U.S. curriculum teaches only nonviolent fragments of the Civil Rights Movement, with the goal of propagandizing the working youth under state fascism. Politics since then has emerged as if the ruling class had declared that humans of post-modernity will see the most invasive and disorienting judgment of their character in response to Dr. Kings call for equality.

Through this cultural procession, subjects face distortion not by a sudden external influence but from a corruption that is laden through the very foundation of their linguistic conception. The attempted manipulation of language by conservatives in order to dehumanize and flagrantly and falsely delegitimize the working class is evidence of a current cultural program of deep seated (parasitic), deeply illogical, and animalistic hatred towards the low Other branded by the ruling class for marginalization. Parasitic because when faced with the opportunity for critical thought, the subject instead subscribes to the status quo to reserve their personal comfort in the hyperreality; deeply illogical to a series of neurological dead-ends, as the illogic in an enlightened subject would coalesce to the understanding of paradoxical reality; animalistic because in place of virtue, the distorted subject holds libido as the only good towards an ecstatic end. To answer Friedrichs question in short summary, etymology throws the light of a barbaric and abyssal proliferation of capitalist simulation on moral concepts, linguistics shows us the gradation of this light, and semiotics shows us its scope.