I first encountered the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche at the tender age of fourteen, in circumstances which he would probably have approved of. At the English boarding school which I attended (as at many similar establishments), each and every day kicked off with an "act of Christian worship", and Sundays were punctuated with lengthy services of Matins and Evensong. The consummate hypocrisy of these events was emphasised by ritual processions of 'School Prefects'. These senior pupils were empowered to order their adolescent juniors to warm toilet seats for them, and to mete out corporal chastisement on their own authority upon the same backsides in retribution for a wide variety of real or imagined transgressions and insubordinations. School Chapel Services, with their avowals of sanctity and humility, seemed confer some divine seal of approval on these gratuitous barbarities, and in so doing inevitably called into question the legitimacy and bona fides of the Christian doctrines and dogmas so pressed into service.

Against this background a 'samizdat' circulation of extracts from Nietzsche's writings provided as welcome a breath of fresh air as does 'Viz' magazine's 'Victorian Dad' cartoon strip today. "Now then, children. Get dressed, and after I have administered your morning beating, we will go to church for two hours of hypocrisy in sub-zero temperatures."

The more rebellious among us surprised the bookshop in town with orders for 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' and volumes of Nietzsche's selected writings, and subsequently used to sit ostentatiously reading these during chapel. The penalty was usually confiscation of the book and a further beating.

Not too surprising really. Opinions like. "I regard Christianity as the most fatal and seductive lie that has ever yet existed - as the greatest and most impious lie ... I decline to enter into any compromise or false position in reference to it - I urge people to declare open war with it" ('The Will to Power' #200). This sort of material was scarcely considered appropriate for impressionable young minds in the mid 1960s.

The irony is that while we, as rebels against what we perceived to be a hypocritical elitist scholastic structure, enjoyed Nietzsche's work as a focus for that rebellion; he himself was a product of an analogous, or even more strictly regimented, scholastic structure - the Schulpforta, the Eton of imperial Prussia - which experience he apparently enjoyed after some initial homesickness. Moreover, his writings are perhaps best remembered (or best forgotten) for the ultra-elitist attitudes permeating them, and have been put forward as providing a philosophical basis for authoritarian and totalitarian regimens such as that which we scholars were in rebellion against.

CONTRADICTIONS, IRRECONCILABLES AND OPPOSITES

Born on 15th October 1844, Friedrich Nietzsche followed an academic career as a classicist. After dropping out of a Theology degree course and a brief spell in the military he specialised in ancient Greek Philology (the study of the authorship attribution and authenticity of works of literature and of the links between them). At the age of 26 Nietzsche moved to Switzerland to take up an appointment as Professor of Philology at the University of Basel.

There seems little doubt that, in gaining such a prestigious position at such a young age, Nietzsche was already regarded as something of a prodigy in his field, and in his first book 'The Birth of Tragedy' (1872) he presented an analysis of that dramatic artform which was recognised as breaking new ground. It was around this time that he first met Richard Wagner, in whose music he found an echo of that same cultural and philosophical paradigm. Their association continued as one of mutual appreciation for some five years until their respective attitudes diverged with Wagner working on the Christian oriented 'Parzival', while Nietzsche concentrated on a re-evaluation of all conventional concepts of religion, morality and the nature of truth.

Nietzsche was probably the first philosopher of the Christian Era to undertake any detailed or substantive analysis of the earliest pre-Socratic Greek thinkers. Like them, he was primarily a rationalist.

In a long essay (or short book) 'Philosophy during the Tragic Age of the Greeks' (1873), he exhibits some sympathy for the thought of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The following passage is illustrative.

The eternal and exclusive Becoming, the total instability of all reality and actuality, which continually works and becomes and never IS, as Heraclitus teaches - is an awful and appalling conception, and in its effects most nearly related to that sensation, by which during an earthquake one loses confidence in the firmly grounded earth. It required an astonishing strength to translate this effect into its opposite, into the sublime, into happy astonishment. Heraclitus accomplished this through an observation of the proper course of all Becoming and Passing, which he conceived of under the form of polarity, as the divergence of a force into two qualitatively different, opposite actions, striving after reunion. A quality is set continually at variance with itself and separates itself into its opposites: these opposites continually strive again one towards the other.

He goes on to point out "that at any instant, bright and dark, sour and sweet are side by side and attached to one another like two wrestlers of whom sometimes the one succeeds, sometimes the other."

There seems to me here to be some echo of the essence of the archaic Chinese principle of Yin-Yang as a contra-distinction of opposite qualities permeating all elements of reality or~actuality. The same principle may be arrived at nowadays in mathematical terms through Kurt model's theorem of undecidability, where, ultimately, even the most rigorously defined formal systems of logic lead to interlocked propositions of mutual contradiction.

Nietzsche, of course, was not a mathematician, nor did he have the benefit of familiarity with modern Chaos Theory with its axiom of "No Ultimate Truth", but he seems at times to have echoed others among the Ancient Greeks in flirting with that concept and then shying away from it. Later in the same essay he quotes a prayer of Parmenides: "Grant me but one Certainty, ye gods! And be it, in the ocean of Uncertainty, only a board, broad enough to lie on! Everything becoming, everything luxuriant, varied, blossoming, deceiving, stimulating, living; take all that for yourselves, and give to me but one single poor empty Certainty". Chaos Theory, of course, implies that Parmenides' prayer can never be answered! Not even by the statement: "There can be no Ultimate Truth", which cannot itself be an Ultimate Truth without collapsing into meaninglessness.

As if in recompense, though, for the lack of any certainty, the gods have given us stochastic coincidence - albeit that neither the Greeks nor Nietzsche appear to have paid it much attention. Such phenomena played a part in my own rekindled interest in Nietzsche's writings, and consequently in the composition of this paper; let me relate an anecdote.

A couple of months ago I was pleased to receive a five pound note in a birthday card from my mother. Wishing to make some purchase of substance with this sum, rather than pissing it up the wall or smoking it, I found myself browsing among the books in Smiths in Lewisham. Finding nothing affordable of particular interest among the new publications, I drifted towards the paperback Penguin Classics and flipped through a few volumes including Nietzsche's so-termed autobiography 'Ecce Homo' (Behold The Man). I was quite surprised therein to spot a reference to Heraclitus, who is after all one of the more obscure Greek sages, albeit one appreciated these days by Chaoticians, if only for his aphorism "The Thunderbolt steers all things". That coincidental reference, combined with the memory of my rebellious schooldays, was enough to part me from Mother's fiver, and I returned home to while away the few hours before the Philos-O-Forum anniversary party.

As I started into the book I was intrigued to learn that Nietzsche had completed it in three weeks, and absolutely astounded to discover that he had started to write the work on his 44th birthday, while I had started to read it on mine.

GENIUS, ARROGANCE, ELITISM AND PARADIGM SHIFT ABILITY

By any conventional yardstick Nietzsche was a genius. Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, describes him as "one of the most influential philosophers who ever lived" and as "the German language's most brilliant prose writer". This is not however synonymous with his having been the most easily understood writer in that language - far from it!

'Ecce Homo' is said to represent the apotheosis of German writing, but, at least in translation, the material put forward therein is often perceived to be opaque at best and quite unintelligible for the greater part. The chapter titles though are all too easy to understand and would seem to display a disarming lack of modesty on the part of the author. "Why I am So Wise", "Why I am So Clever" and "Why I Write Such Excellent Books", even as tongue-in-cheek section headers, would seem to betray an attitude of surpassing arrogance. Nietzsche may well have been wise, and clever, and have written excellent books, but most authors resist the urge to spell it out to the reader in such forthright terms.

The elitist attitudes expressed are rather less of the nature of 'us-and-them' than of 'I-am-superior-to-everyone-else'. Such a perspective on life is not necessarily unique (compare Margaret Thatcher for example), but it is not usually indicative of a problem-free personality, or of an easy passage through life's ups and downs. Where Nietzsche may however have been quite extraordinary is in his ability not only to paradigm shift, but also to reflect such shifts in the course of his writing; and this in turn may be a contributary factor in rendering his published works difficult to understand, since he does not always trouble to make clear to the reader when such shifts are taking place. It is thus problematic sometimes to discern his own "real" or "actual" attitude to the topics addressed in his writing, since one seems to be absorbing a shifting tapestry of perspectives, which in itself provides an dynamic portrayal of the fundamental contradictions which he holds to be at the core of reality or actuality.

Therein rests, in my view, the reason why so many divergent philosophies of the 20th century seem to trace some antecedent in Nietzsche's thinking. He might equally be claimed as a predecessor by fascists, by anarchists, by atheists, by laissez-faire capitalists, by hedonistic moral reformers, by logical positivists, by existentialists, and by occultists of the Chaoist tendency. It seems to me that the issue is less one of Nietzsche's philosophical stance having migrated as his career progressed (though there are elements of that), but rather one of his genius having been able to appreciate the contradictions inherent in the wide spectrum of human thought, and of his having been able to dip into different perspectives without necessarily bothering clearly to inform his readers that this was what he was doing.

RELIGION THE ULTIMATE LIE - MORALITY THE ULTIMATE IMMORALITY

In contrast with the attitudes considered above, there are certain issues on which Nietzsche remains relatively consistent. From whatever viewpoint he approaches them, religion and morality are presented as being inextricably linked.

Nietzsche's starting point in the debate on morality derives from the origins of the words 'gut' (good), 'schlecht' (bad), and 'bose' (evil). Examination of the etymology of these words (at least from a German language perspective) indicates that they derive from the Master/slave social paradigm which prevailed in classical times. Certain personality characteristics were typical of the 'Master' class, for example, pride and sense of autonomy; other traits, among them humility and obedience, were associated with 'slave' mentality. At this stage in the argument morality as such doesn't come into it.

The thesis is that in ancient pagan cultures the traits of mastery were seen as admirable, while those of slavery were despised; however, if one is seeking to maintain order and stability in such a culture, it makes a lot of sense to promote the value of slavish qualities (obedience etc) and to denigrate those of mastery (pride, independent thought etc). Thus it was, in Nietzsche's view, that post-Socratic Greek and Judaic philosophical moralities emphasised the importance of sub-servience to some higher authority, for which one would be rewarded in accordance with a "jam tomorrow" arrangement (after death or whatever), while those who exercised the prerogatives of mastery, being essentially 'bad' or 'evil' in behaviour, would get their just deserts - some sort of eternal damnation. The masters didn't have to accept this, but if the slaves and subject classes believed it, society worked a lot more smoothly.

He then goes on to demonstrate that all religions are concocted to trap the bulk of the populus within a belief system which sustains that status quo within a 'divinely' ordained moral framework. From that point the argument holds that all such moralities can only be imposed and sustained by methods and techniques which are essentially immoral by their own standards. As a corollary, religions are the great lie, where historical and/or philosophical truth will always fall foul of the need to maintain the consistency of the basic belief structure.

Nietzsche takes the view that 'nihilism' is the endpoint of religion since it strives to reduce all humanity to an attitude of passive subservience where, being unable to think for themselves, members of humanity eventually succumb to a lowest-common-denominator where progress ceases, thus posing a threat to the viability of the species.

The concept of 'nihilism' seems to have developed over the last 100 years, such that Nietzsche's version of it pertains more to a passive terminal torpitude, rather than the more energetic "get-pissed DESTROY" sort of anarchic nihilism espoused by modern punk culture. Quite what Nietzsche might have made of the 'Sex Pistols' is an interesting speculation.

In contrast to this perceived triumph of nihilism, Nietzsche develops the idea the the most basic, but suppressed, human impulse is the "Will to Power". This is a characteristic of our innate dominance as a species, but is continually stamped down because of its connotations of immorality.

Various theories of super-man, racial superiority, and the abandonment of conventional morality derive from that philosophical view as interpreted with reference to the social, religious and geo-political context within which Nietzsche was writing. I do not think those developments of the argument necessarily follow today, not least because Nietzsche's thinking itself has been influential, and as a result rationalism has gained significant influence in the interim, while that of religion has waned. At no point, as far as I can see, does Nietzsche seek to deny spiritual and/or metaphysical actuality - he merely denigrates, in the strongest possible terms, the monopoly which organised religion has arrogated to itself for those aspects of life.

It never seems to have occurred to Nietzsche that there was any alternative to "heirarchy" as a paradigm for organisation of natural phenomena and human affairs, unless it was 'lowest-common-denominator' nihilism. He was looking at things half a century before the development of systems theory, and almost a full century before Chaos Theory came along to help us to a broader perspective on such matters.

Nietzsche's arguments, if 'heirarchy' is the only allowed paradigm for social organisation, lead inevitably to totalitarianism. Although he excoriates notions of egalitarianism as being little different to religious inspired nihilism, his heirarchial preoccupations applied in a socialist context (national or international) inevitably throw up absolute and tyrannical regimes with, seemingly, some penchant for developing idealised human beings. Examples of such tendencies can be seen in the Nazi preoccupation with eugenics, and in the work of the Moscow 'Institute of Brain' which has been trying since the death of Lenin to prove that good communists have 'superior' brain structure to that of ordinary mortals.

"THE ORDER OF RANK" or THE CHAOS OF NET-LINKED SYSTEMS

In proposing 'The Doctrine of the Order of Rank', Nietzsche draws on examples from 'Nature' - the heirarchical characteristics of evolution and animal behaviour are invoked. Examining the same arguments and examples today, one is bound to appreciate that what appears to be natural 'order' is merely a "sport" stochastically emergent from an all pervasive Chaos. Attempts artificially to impose Order on this Chaos eventually result in a situation where one is working against the natural chaotic processes, with the result that the imposed order tends towards collapse.

Bitter experience would seem to suggest that attempts to impose such Order on human social organisation ultimately result in similar collapse, albeit that grotesque hardships may be imposed and experienced as part of the process of Order's attempts to assert itself.

With Fascism and Communism now shown up for the disasters they can evolve into, the focus of attention must inevitably shift to the shortcomings of the totalitarianism of capitalist market economics and its infra-structure. If anyone doubts the totalitarian veneer overlaying that system, let them try running a business without banks or telephones. The scenario seems to be one of an Establishment racked by ever increasing levels of corruption, while those excluded from (or outlawed by) that conventional paradigm comprise an ever growing 'black' economy, until the whole edifice eventually collapses in upon itself; as has happened in recent months in the Soviet Union.

The only option open to Authority in such circumstances is to re-impose itself by force. The Military Coup is much in fashion these days.

CONCLUSION

Nietzsche called for a "transvaluation of all values". In terms of history up to and including his own lifetime, and, given the relative immaturity of rational understanding of the way the universe works, he probably made a reasonable job of it. In a sense modern Chaoticians are going through a similar re-evaluation process, but are doing so from a standpoint of a more developed rational world-view, and within a terrestrial environment which is threatened in ways which never occurred to Nietzsche.

It was not until two or three decades after he ceased writing coherently that Nietzsche's thought began to enter into popular ways of looking at life, and, in all probability, several decades might be expected to elapse before any impact becomes perceptible as a result of any chaotician's re-evaluation of all values. Madness, paralysis and death doubtless await all those bold enough to attempt such an adventure.

"God is Dead" said Nietzsche: "Chaos is Life" say I.

REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

ENCYCLOPAEDIA Macropaedia Ref: Friedrich Nietzsche ed 1988
BRITANNICA

NIETZSCHE, F The Birth of Tragedy 1872

Philosophy during the Tragic Age of the Greeks 1873
(Incl in 'Early Greek Philosophy and other essays'; transl M Mugge) Foulis 1911

Thus Spake Zarathustra 1885 (transl T Common) Foulis 1914


Beyond Good and Evil 1886 (transl H Zimmern) Foulis 1909


Ecce Homo 1889 (transl R J Hollingdale) Penguin 1979


The Will to Power (2 vols published posthumously)(transl A M Ludovici) Foulis 1910

SAUTET, M Nietzsche for Beginners (Writers & Readers Publishing), NY 1990

VIZ MAGAZINE 'Victorian Dad' Strip Cartoon Issue 51 Dec 1991