State is the name of the oldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too: and this lie crawls out of its mouth: “I, the State, am the people.” Friedrich Nietzsche
My dears, my dears,
What if by State we meant 'State of Being?' Hermann might agree that if we considered a State of Being the ultimate State, lies would be quite impossible to tell.
All three of you say it so eloquently; a State of Being lies within us, within each person, for each of us to discover for ourselves. But is that too difficult? Too tenuous or undefined? Do we really need religious states, political states and other social and cultural prescriptions in order to survive? Or is this the way we relinquish responsibility for ourselves, to ourselves and others?
What would we do without the dramatic tension of Us versus Them; without our identifiers that tell us that we’re righteous, virtuous and wealthy? Does aggrandizing our state of existence yield prosperity, or does challenging that state of existence create virtue? If so, my dear men, for whom and wherewith?
What happens if and when we recognize that what we’ve created is inferior to what we can achieve? In creating this monster, this teller of lies, can we decide to destroy it? “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster,” said Nietzsche. “For when you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Can we ultimately hold a political State accountable? Is Schopenhauer’s “patriotism the passion of fools?” Or should we be holding our personal State of Being ultimately responsible? Perhaps it’s more than we’re willing to search for? More still than we’re able to achieve.
Are we intelligent enough to decipher your words, Friedrich? Strong enough to decant Arthur’s meaning? Could we ever awaken the intellect and follow Hermann to Enlightenment? The wisdom of Hesse, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are as old as time itself, but for some too young to understand. Angela Gala