Being and the Aristocratic Revolution


One should read Nietzsche through Fourier, Stirner through Proudhon, Michelstaedter through Heidegger, Lao Tzu through De Puydt, Bataille through Marx, Kierkegaard through Rene Girard, Sterne through Goethe in order to open up new psychic spaces...
   One looks at the economy in a wholly different way when one sees in value, not units of mere utility, but expressions of both desire and power. All forms of social organization seem organic to the degree that moral husks and approximations have been acknowledged in their antiquation and cast aside. Some of the garments, the very aesthetic integiments of reality which would outlive acknowledgement of this antiquation, require a new being so that the image may live. A sacrifice is made in order that a truth should remain. The being which fulgurates in the space of a moment - all moments are messianic - though random seeming, are what they are because they represent the absolute peak and shrillest point of a tension. What is manifest, at all times, is the dialectical, kaleidoscopic enclosure of a thousand and one forces. Being itself is the very last, the very accretion, the very summit which fools us, confuses our ability to read into its fabric a panultimate cause or an ultimate effect.
Sovereignty is the self-possession of this being. It is the darkness which takes its seat precisely in that light.
   Nietzsche, much belonging in formula to the tradition of La Rouchefoucauld, as he admitted, saw in civilization a plurality of self-deceptions even for the sake of self-interest. The ubermensch (the least provocative of all his ideas, really) is, at the end of the day, little better than one who takes into his hands the affair which civilization has been performing witlessly and mindlessly for countless millenia. In Fourier, on the other hand, we're faced with a whole uber-civilization; a beyond in association with the other which maximizes Dionysian voluptuousness with a sense of Appollonian commitment. Fourier, fanciful, reckless and visionary though he was, had gone quite ahead of Nietzsche in envisioning, compared to a slave morality or a Marxist worker's revolt, but rather, an Aristocratic Revolution. He was not concerned with the means of getting there, but only the ultimate vision. (Perhaps the most aristocratic thing about him - his ultimate disdain of performing any action which one could not hang the whole of himself on). 
   Stirner nails the problem down metaphysically in the realm of self-interest, as he realizes, quite ahead of Fourier, that 'pleasure' is not universally adequate in the realm of self-creation, but that some may certainly desire or will their own contentment with quietism or self-destruction; that there is no final law by which man must adhere to, dialectically. Nietzsche understood this too, but set himself the task of forging a new idol. Stirner's idea of the 'union' acts as a metaphysical consummation of principles which economic and political theorists could only create in the cold, cemented forms of civilization. Proudhon, De Puydt; these visions of society are merely accelerated, radicalizations of the classical liberal materialism which had, as a backdoor sovereignty, de-crowned but no less throned, the contract - the law of the personal, the harnessing of nature for the sake of human utility. Lao Tzu's sovereign is in keeping with the union of Stirner - the sovereign recognizes the organicity of the union and its ever-unfolding, doubling, coupling, becoming. It is precisely Lao Tzu's sovereign which sees the Unique in terms of the Other - this is what it means (in some small part) to possess Tao. 
Heidegger possessed the historical consciousness which Michelstaedter utterly lacked, whether he ignored it or was ignorant of it. Being is not something to trace or ask questions about; it is simply to be lived. For Heidegger, however, being remains that ever allusive force which death confronts us with. This confrontation with death was ultimately absued by Michelstaedter as his philosophy simply amounted to a fetishization of death - a granting being to death which did not belong to it. Self destruction is then ritualized nihilistically as a means of reclaiming value, but primarily through the horror of spatial and causal forms.
   Bataille and Rene Girard, in their respective ways, allow destruction its being, not as liberating in itself in the manner of vulgar revolutionary language, but as the penultimate indication of a gnosis which does not deny, cancel or even embrace death, but moves beyond it. Through the act of religious sacrifice, whether it be Michelstaedter taking his own life, the slaying of animals en masse in ancient India or the crucifixion of Christ, an interpretive key is opened up in which we witness being taking inventory of its own excesses. Bataille's desire to write a note, to which he would assign to De Sade, proclaiming at the obelisk that 'The head of King Louis XVI has been found,' comes from the need to find the trace, that which is leftover - in other words, that part of the sacrifice which wasn't sufficiently destroyed, for it never can be truly erased.
   A revolution of the disenfranchised is only ever going to lead to the glory of destruction. Fourier would have us forge ahead, toward a revolution of the passions - toward a surplus of joy; its implications naturally and ubiquitously aristocratic.