Forms of deference

Although from a purely philosophical point of view it would be advisable to write this article in German, I feel just a little too bitter about it to do so.

It is normal to acknowledge a greater soul than one's own and just as normal to let it be acknowledged. Hence, for each part of the soul there is a form of deference, an act of acknowledgement of the superior, i.e.

• to entrust,
• to fawn over and
• to beg.

To entrust means to acknowledge superior insight, to fawn over means to acknowledge superior discipline and to beg means to acknowledge superior power.

And where there is the readiness to acknowledge such, there's naturally also the readiness to reciprocate the acknowledgement by

• care,
• leadership and
• generosity.

A society is very much defined by the forms of deference that it allows, for the state has a monopoly on the reciprocations of all the forms that it shuns.

The German society in particular allows only fawning, and hence there is neither care nor generosity amongst Germans. It is safe to say that this state of affairs is not older than the Third Reich and that it is somewhat coincidental: In abolishing the class society of old the Nazis pressed every aspect of German life into the shape of a household with an elected leader at the helm and maids and servants fawning over him - and so it has remained, everywhere: in companies, ministries and universities.

Which makes everything terribly simple in Germany: You have a dashing smile? Fine, over there. No? Well, then over here.

The folk wisdom is that a critic brings misfortune - and quite so, because most likely a critic suffers from the lack of begging and/or entrusting and hence wants to overturn the established order.

And sure, I'm guilty as charged. May the generosity lie entirely in the hands of the state, I can live with that, but that the state has the monopoly on care is a terrible mistake. Not that this is an issue of much consideration, I can feel it in every fiber of my body that man is supposed to entrust the security of his possessions, material and immaterial, to his fellow man, just as he's supposed to take care of it. Centralising this is nuts and the mother of all aberrations, and in particular of groupthink.

I don't believe that the German model, which owes its existence essentially to an accident, will prove victorious. It's very clumsy in its own way, all matters of an ethical nature must be elevated to the national level and decided by a sufficiently popularised narrative: The German government has essentially to write a new Gospel every time it wants to make any kind of correction to the current system, for otherwise the orthodoxy would kick it out of office.

It's a pain in the ass and the idea that this limping monster wants to rule the world - and it does, the model mind you - is rather monstrous itself.

Nietzsche asked: Freedom to do what? Well, the answer is rather unspectacular: Freedom to entrust, to fawn over or to beg. It is by admitting our own weakness that our society becomes strong, because once admitted it will eradicate the weakness through interaction - benevolence provided, which in the case of begging is of course a bit of a problem.

Anyway, I asked myself - I was walking through the woods and listening to the birds and I asked myself: Is my life empty? Not really. A part of me is like an amputated limb, but I grew up in a butchery and I know what it is like to entrust my life, even if not to my fellow man. All things considered I'm rich and which man chooses his wounds?