9 | THE DIALECTICAL CUBE : a Nietzschean-Beauvoirian Architecture
Method & Madness | Book II : Archetypical Philosophies
Regardless of whether claims such as "there is a categorical imperative in us"1 possess actual value, we can always still ask: Why are such claims made? Some moralities are used by their creators in order to forget something; others are be used in order to make other people forget something else. In the end, a morality is nothing more than a way for someone to convince you to think or feel the way that they want you to.
We have observed in the course of our study2 that the human being concurrently inhabits three distinct modes of existence:
Individual-Subjectivity: where Man is a Subject in a world of physical Objects, with the ability to experience it and to act to affect it according to his will.
Absolute-Objectivity: the metaphysical world of Objects which we must infer that we exist within—which cannot be directly observed, and thus cannot be proven to exist.
Social-Objectivity: where Man is a physical Object in a world of Other-Subjects; where he is observed, judged, and thus affected and defined by the will and opinion of Others.
If we plot these modes as a set of axes which represent what a person believes about how he-or-she relates3 to reality, then we may arrive at the following distribution:
x = [Individual-Subjectivity] : the Agency Axis
What I believe about the nature of my personal freedom-of-action.
+x = I am Powerful: a Subject with the Agency to act in the world to shape it by my will.
-x = I am Impotent: an Object with no Agency to act to determine my world or situation.
y = [Absolute-Objectivity] : the World-state Axis
What I believe about the nature of the world, and Man’s place within it.
+y = The world is Ordered: existence should be taken Seriously, and Man’s greater purpose is inherent to him and/or the world.
-y = The world is Chaotic: existence is Absurd, and Man’s “grand purpose” is obviously absent from the world.
z = [Social-Objectivity] : the Society Axis
What I believe about how Others see my Agency in relation to their own.
+z = I am seen as Civil: as part of an in-group with aligned or diminutive Agency, thus leverageable as an asset or ally of Value towards an end.
-z = I am seen as Rival: as part of an out-group with opposed Agency, thus a liability of negative or null Value to be considered worthless or (potentially) hostile.
Eight Corners : Stable Philosophical Positions
-x = Impotence: Powerless to act.
+y = Order: The world is constant.
+z = Civil: I’m valued because I’m loved.
-x = Impotence: Powerless to act.
+y = Order: The world should be constant.
-z = Rival: They dismiss me for my humility.
+x = Power: Empowered to act.
+y = Order: The world is constantly meaningful.
-z = Rival: I’m respected for my Power.
-x = Impotence: Disempowered to act.
-y = Chaos: The world is constantly meaningless.
-z = Rival: They dread the truth I speak.
+x = Power: Capable to act.
-y = Chaos: Nothing is given—only made.
-z = Rival: I’m feared for my Power.
-x = Impotence: Disempowered to act.
-y = Chaos: Nothing is given freely.
+z = Civil: They value my devotion.
+x = Power: Capable of action.
-y = Chaos: Nothing is given—only taken.
+z = Civil: I’m esteemed for my Power.
+x = Impotence: Capable to act.
+y = Order: The world is given to me.
+z = Civil: I’m praised because I’m valued.
Philosophy: a mindset. a worldview. The way that one chooses to see the world, and thus approach living one’s life.
Αρχή | archí: origin
Τύπος | týpos: form
An Archetypical Philosophy is the logical basis of a person’s attitude, derived from observation of how he-or-she chooses to exist.
i.e. “we possess innate knowledge of Absolutely-Objective morality.”
Book I, Section 5: Being & Nothingness.
As in Kierkegaard, where: “The self is a relation that relates itself to itself, or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself.” In less deranged terms: a “self” is a relationship between a thing and itself. A “self” is also situated in a physical world and a social context, whereby the Existentialist (i.e. not Kierkegaard) must conclude that the “self” is not constituted just by a recursive relationship with itself, but also equally its relationship to its reality and situation.