Pollen

By Nick Scipione

There exists a fundamental divide between drive and desire, as pointed out by Jacques Lacan¹, which is all too often over-looked.Before the nervous system can become excited and produce drives, there must be that which initiated the enticing. Past environs indicate how production can occur, and present environs determine the necessity to start production. An example of this is the fact that the drive to produce feces must come second to the discourse of where to do it, and the hormone that indicates the need for it to excrete. In a similar manner, the drive to obtain a long-term romantic companion comes after we learn the need for a romantic companion, or understand the status of being single, or realize dissatisfaction with a current partner. It is within Nietzsche’s three metamorphoses of spirit that we can come to understand the different approaches to desire, linked through a biological drive, and how they are depicted in today’s modern world of politics.

Trieb is a German word used by Freud to describe the drives that occur from stimuli originating from within an organism. Freud labels such stimuli as constant and unable to be dodged by single flight; unlike outer stimuli, such as sunlight, that can be dodged by single flight. Treib is the force that drives us to produce series of actions, which is separate from the Freudian Wunch, the German word for wish. It is Freud’s Wunch on which Lacan bases his definition of desire. Before the drive to produce action (trieb), there must first be the understanding of desire. This is the same for social desires as for biological.

Lacanian desire functions in such a way that it does not start with a lack, but rather a pressure on the subject to produce ─ just as a flying rock moving towards the face pressures the body to react. The end result of production can be linguistically labeled, but the signifier demanding action holds no signified within its definition. This is why that which we fantasize obtaining is referred to by Lacan as a void, object petit a. If the pressure to produce is a signifier, then object petit a is the signified. Reason, as a cognitive force, is used for the production of desire and creates a grammatical need for that which to desire. The linguistical need, or point of satisfaction, is always created after the desire comes into existence.

In Capitalism and Schizophrenia Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari criticize any attempts at labeling desire as a need, a shot at Lacan. They write, “Desire is not bolstered by needs, but rather the contrary; needs are derived from desire: they are counter-products within the real that desire produces. Lack is a counter-effect of desire; it is deposited, distributed, vocalized within a real that is natural and social.”² Here we see Deleuze and Guattari’s vision of desire: Desire is a machine through which the desire and object are one in the same through production. This concept is something that Lacanians should be able to agree with. Any criticism that object petit a is a lack that creates desire is far off base. Lacan’s conception of object petit a can only exist after desire is initiated.

It is through our drives that we come to self-realize desire, and it is this bodily aspect to which Nietzsche pays attention. The only way to recognize desire is to understand the body. The body communicates with the mind to initiate production. Desire can show opportunity, however, is sterile without the will of the body to produce action. It is the Freudian trieb, or drives, that demand action to produce. The body reacts in excitation to certain environmental situations, which is then interpreted as a signifier to produce. The context of the environment will dictate the linguistical need, and production will ensue. That which demands is not desire, but the body and its drives. Nietzsche states this when he writes, “Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage – whose name is self. In your body he dwells he is your body.”³ So why then does Slavoj Zizek, a Lacanian philosopher, criticize Nietzsche as holding “a kind of survivalist attitude” where “the highest value is the continuation of life itself.”⁴ Nietzsche certainly heavily praised art, music, and every cultural phenomenon enriched with creativity. It is a matter of giving agency to the body that Zizek does not agree with; but without the body desire is only a sterile web of semiotics. Only through the body can we come to realize a demand to produce desire, which is why the body rightfully possesses agency.

When Nietzsche criticized someone for acting on behalf of Christian pity, it was a physiological evaluation of weakness. Take for example the modern phenomena of commercials that plea for your donation to help sponsor children in poor countries. The commercial is interpreted in such a way that it makes one “feel bad”. A stimulus communicates to the body, and the body reacts with feeling of depression─ not a demanding signifier. The cultural interpretation of this is to say, “I am feeling bad because I must do something.” To act upon this is to place cultural values above the body, which is exactly what it means to be weak. To give in to the demands of the commercial is to act on behalf of that which goes against what the body is communicating as “bad”. Some say, “I feel good when I donate to charity.” Is this not because they are getting rid of the very vice which started the somber tone… pity? Through this example we understand why Nietzsche thought Buddhist compassion was a thousand times more practical than Christian pity.⁵ Buddhist compassion asks that people produce compassionate actions on behalf of their own happiness; not out of the happiness of others.

It is only through the body that we can understand what Lacan referred to as the big Other, or those un-written rules of society that compel us produce desire. To interpret the rules of the big Other through language is to misunderstand what the big Other demands. The body communicates, through neutrality, depression, and excitement, the un-written opinions of the big Other. The body makes no decisions, yet it acts as the vessel that provides for the signifier the demand to produce desire.

THE FIRST METAMORPHOSES OF SPIRIT: CAMEL

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.⁶

The camel is a subject that places cultural values as the ultimate end to every means. Regardless of how much a series of actions may weaken the body, such a subject would exalt in naïve mental strength to dominate whatever cultural value is asked of it. In this mode the signifier, presented by the body, is of second importance to the conscious cultural value. No matter what signs of negativity the body may create, they will always be over-looked in favor of what is believed to be necessitated through culture.

It is the camel from which we have learned the political personality of Iran. Iran is a theocracy. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran is based on fundamental religious beliefs given by the Koran. The person with the highest ranking political authority is also the person who possesses the highest ranking religious authority, the Supreme Leader. The outcome of this type of religious political system is one that bares many burdens for sake of ideology. Regardless of what signifier of desire the body may give, it is always superseded by religious authority. Hence the individuals under such a government are asked to endure pains without giving in to the physical signs that admonish danger.

When the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spoke with news reporter Brian Williams in spring of 2008, Williams confronted Ahmadinejad on the current economic woes Iran is experiencing. Ahmadinejad replied with,

I believe that in the life of man, there are things that are more important than material welfare and prosperity. In other words, we are talking about the dignity of human beings.⁷

When Ahmadinejad says “material welfare and prosperity” this can only be interpreted as euphemistic language, as Willams was pointing out major economic strife seen by “20-percent inflation”⁸ and “workers strikes for back-wages.” The politically incorrect point that Ahmadinejad probably wished he could make was that even a basic stable economy is not worth compromising ideology. In reference to the camel Nietzsche writes, “Or is it this: stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?”⁹ Is this not the very mentality of Ahmadinejad?

Whether or not Ahmadinejad is a poor leader and the agent of their current economic strife, his faithful position to ideology is shared by their constitution. Any government that places religion as an ends to every means will find that basic signs of negativity from the body will be over-looked for a higher purpose. If it is bearable, it is even praised as seen with the ascetic rituals of chest beating still practiced commonly today in Islamic culture.

Why put religion above the body? The wrong conclusion would be to suggest that built within their unwritten rules of society, the big Other, exists the demand to do such a thing. The demand of the big Other is known through how the body reacts. If the body is not excited for economic strife and chest beating, then it is not the will of the big Other. The body is denied for a higher purpose that lays not within the unwritten rules of the big Other, just as Christian pity does not latently embedded within it.

THE SECOND METAMORPHOSES OF SPIRIT: LION

In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs: here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert. Here he seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? “Thou shalt” is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, “I will.” “Thou shalt” lies in his way, sparkling like gold, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden “thou shalt.”¹⁰

Unlike Iran, the United States is not a theocracy and therefore religion does not have the final say in political affairs, but admittedly in the Declaration of Independence it is only through ideology that we obtain our values. Even though the Declaration of Independence does not give any political authority to government, it is without shame constantly used for justification with quotes such as “all men are created equal” and God-given rights including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Politicians have used these ideas to push forward political agendas across the spectrum from President Lincoln’s move to abolish slavery to President Obama’s nationalized health-care plan.

The United States government functions in such a way that it interprets these endowed values to justify different legislative functions. All political parties within the United States have an ideology from which they take orders. It is not the personality of these political parties to suffer for their ideology. Rather, their personalities are inclined to pick and choose which ideology they believe can best achieve their path to non-suffering and proliferation.

In 1950 Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand and asked her what she thought of the “gradual growth of social, protective legislation based on the principle that we are our brother’s keepers.” Ayn Rand replied with saying she feels the same way as everyone, and that she’s just more conscious of it. She feels that it is “terrible”, there is “destruction all around”, and it will continue that way until the “welfare state is reversed and rejected.” This is of no surprise given Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but what is more interesting is the fact that she says everyone agrees with this but they are just not conscious of it. Big government may not be the best political answer, but in order to disagree with the senses that the current state of politics is terrible, it must be a conscious rational decision. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a difference in the way unconsciousness and consciousness interpret physical signifiers. Ayn Rand may have a point, that big government will eventually destroy itself, which is why she may both physically feel terrible, and rationalize that it is terrible. The rest of the American people, who receive their hand-outs and are happy with big government, will not have the same physical experience given from the happy senses.

Legislative government in the United States interprets its various roles in politics through ideology that is seen through domestic socialized programs, but also foreign policy. In a fall 2004 presidential debate, President George W. Bush said,

I never want to impose my religion on anybody else. But when I make decisions I stand on principle. And the principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That’s manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we’ve unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That’s what I believe. And that’s one part of my foreign policy.¹¹

When Bush says “…unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt,” his language is so full of euphemisms laden with ideology that it is difficult to even understand without a context. Of course he is referring to the preemptive strike upon Iraq and the control of their government. The social environment of a post 9/11 world allows for the body to signify a drive to react. The values that dictate production of this drive to invade Iraq are pre-determined culturally. He admits that this decision comes from who he is, and who he is takes dictations from ideology to handle production of action in face of drive.

THE THIRD METAMORPHOSES OF SPIRIT: CHILD

But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred “Yes.” For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred “Yes” is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world.¹²

A ‘sacred Yes’ is needed to create what the Lion could not: self-created values. It could be interpreted that since the Lion could say “No” to values and reject them, then a “Yes” would be an acceptance of cultural values─ but what both the camel and the lion could do. What it must be interpreted as, without contradiction, is a sacred “Yes” to the creative forces of the body. If there is a spiritual acceptance of the signification from the body, then the mind is no longer controlled by values preexisting within culture. The Child can create its own demands: will his own will. To take orders from itself, the body, it needs the cooperation of individual spirit to affirm its own will. Without that affirmation from spirit, the pre-existing signifiers of the social environs command the production of desire.

It would be a hard task to find a government free from pre-determined cultural values, but it is not impossible to see groups of people who identify themselves under an independent nation and functioning under such a mode of living. Tibet is home to one of these groups of people. Tibet, who is not recognized as an independent nation, is officially part of the Republic of China. Tibet’s fight for independence is currently broken between the younger, more rebellious generation, and the older generation who are more loyal to the 14th Dalai Lama’s word. The Dalai Lama does not wish complete independence of Tibet from the Republic of China.¹³ He does not command the people of Tibet, but rather only offers his guidance. He himself has admitted that the people of Tibet will make their final political decisions on their own.¹⁴ The Dalai Lama’s unofficial “government in exile” of Tibet, Central Tibetan Administration, is the type of government that allows the people to make decisions on their personal desires, regardless of their cultural authority, as seen in practice through the rebellious younger generation.

A FORMULA FOR GREATNESS

Deleuze views Nietzsche’s stages of the three metamorphoses of spirit as arbitrary, all present within each other.¹⁵ But, if we are to place the three metamorphoses of spirit in context to Nietzsche’s spirituality centered on acceptance of the body, we can interpret the passage a little more literally, as actual metamorphoses of spirit.

Nietzche’s solution for greatness is amor fati, love of fate.¹⁶ To love the outcome of the production of desire is to not care if culture approves or disapproves. The object of amor fati is to un-learn resentment. Resentment can be tailored in two ways: 1.) Wishing a different state of what is experienced and 2.) Holding on to an experience as if to not wish an inevitable change. The former is a state in which the subject resents the state of events as is, and the latter resents the state of change which occurs. To resent is to be controlled by the realm of ideology and culture. In the way of amor fati one can learn to will his own will, instead of following the will of the interpreted cultural demand. In this context, Nietzsche’s state of greatness is the final stage of the three metamorphoses, the child. It is the child who transcends resentment to will his own will.

In context of transforming into the child, amor fati is perhaps better defined through the word aphiēmi, applied to the cultural semiotic approval. Aphiēmi is Greek for referring to letting go of a force with complete forgiveness. This is exactly what is called for in the mode of the child: Acceptance of cultural forces with a complete forgiveness to whatever opinion it may have.

It is through the signification of the subject that culture, during production of desire, conveys approval, or disapproval on the experience of production. Both approval and disapproval, if clung to, can create resentment. If the production of desire is dependent upon the approval or disapproval of culture through the subject, culture will control production. Through letting go of the subject’s position within culture, the active production of desire produces on behalf of the body – not culture.

How can one practice amor fati? Meditation is without a doubt one way. It is a practice that encourages the letting go of personal attachment to fate. The practice of meditation, for that time meditating, limits passions to help one become unattached to desire and the production of. If it is said in a Buddhist context that one has transcended desire, then perhaps one has transcended the grip of desire. We can never fully rid of drive so long as our nervous system exists, but the attachment to seeing it through may be eradicated through the practice of meditation. It is attachment, or resentment, which impedes our ability to live freely from cultural expectations, willing our own will.
The object of amor fati is to un-learn resentment.

1. Jacques Lacan. Écrits, trans. Bruce Fink (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002), 722-723 [↩]
2. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane (1983; repr., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003) [↩]
3. Friedrich Nietzsche. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Walter Kaufmann, Modern Library ed. (London: Viking Penguin, 1954; New York: Random House, 1995), 34-35. Citations are to the Random House edition. [↩]
4. Zizek shortly after radicalizes his survivalist interpretation to, “a pure survivalism without any sense of historical mission or engagement.” Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek (Cambridge & Malden: Polity, 2004), 104to produce desire, which is why the body rightfully possesses agency. [↩]
5. Friedrich Nietzsche. The Anti-Christ, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1990), 34-35. [↩]
6. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 26. [↩]
7. NBC News, “Transcript: ‘Response…will be a positive one’”, NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25887437/page/2/ [↩]
8. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25887437/page/2/ [↩]
9. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 26. [↩]
10. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 27 [↩]
11. Office of the Press Secretary , “Remarks by President Bush and Senator Kerry in the Third 2004 Presidential Debate”, The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041014-1.htmlenvironment [↩]
12. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 27 [↩]
13. Christiane Amanpour and Andrew Tkach, “Dalai Lama challenged by new generation of Buddhist activists”, CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/31/amanpour.buddhas.warriors/index.html?iref=newssearch [↩]
14. Tenzin Gysato, “Speech of His Holiness the
    Dalai Lama to the European Parliament, Strasbourg”, His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama, http://www.dalailama.com/page.99.htmmake [↩]
15. Gilles Deleuze. Pure Immanence Essays On A Life, trans. Anne Boyman (New York: Urzone, 2001), 53-54 [↩]
16. Friedrich Nietzsche. Ecce Homo, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (1979; repr., London: Penguin Books, 2004), 37 [↩]