On small change & big change & world change & life change

Here's the next page from my book of 286 Drawing Prompts. (The previous page appeared sometime in the past.) The prompt for this present drawing was "Bumper sticker".

Dear diary,

There was a world before Nietzsche, and there is a world after Nietzsche. How different is the post-Nietzsche world, compared to the pre-Nietzsche world? In other words: How much did Friedrich Nietzsche change the world? My guess is that he didn’t change it much; and I suspect that he might not have even changed it at all, with the exception of whatever influence he has had on those who, like I, have read his writings with love. (And by that last clause I mean what Hamlet means about the stars, when he claims that his words leave them standing as “wonder-wounded hearers”.)

But there are also many people who dislike Nietzsche, and among this class are at least two groups:

• those who have read him
• those who have not

& I’m unsure whether there are any in that top set above who have read him with care.

But disliking Nietzsche can bring change too. So maybe Nietzsche has caused more world-change than I first assumed. I just wish that the volume and quality of change that he effected would have lined up a little more with what I myself desire. But of course I wish that everything would line up a little more with my own desires.

The reason I began this day with these questions about Nietzsche is that I worry about the amount of world-change that I myself might make — or rather fail to make, for I fear that it will be next to nothing at all. I was trying to cheer myself by choosing a hero and then saying to myself: Weep no more, woeful shepherd; for not even Nietzsche, your exemplar, could make big-time change.

But isn’t it meaningful to influence a consummate artist? Just one would be enough; yet Nietzsche has provoked many, & will continue. Think of Hebdomeros, that strange scripture by Giorgio de Chirico; also the works of D.H. Lawrence — where would these marvels be without Friedrich Nietzsche? So I say: It is not only meaningful but the acme of the human mind, to lure genius to infuse its creation with one’s free spirit.

Now take another example: Jesus of Nazareth. How did he change the world? The common consensus is that Jesus changed the world greatly, for we even chronologize human history to accord with his advent: we label all the years that predated him as “Before Jesus” and what succeeds him as “After Jesus Died”. Also Christianity as a religion seems relatively dominant.

But straightway these accomplishments make me suspicious, thus I ask: Would Jesus be pleased to learn that all his efforts ended up changing the way that futurity labels its calendars? And would Jesus recognize his own teachings in our modern Christian religion?

Nobody can answer those two last questions but Jesus himself; and he remains silent, either because he’s dead or for some other reason. So I’ll venture to speak on behalf of Jesus and answer: No, I’m not proud to have moved everyone to add the abbreviation “B.C.” or “A.D.” after the awful number “2020”. I would rather that the time contain distinguished & harmonious events — if that were the case, I wouldn’t give a fig what you label your generation: you could name it after Satan, for all I care, or even Jehovah; only do what I said and forgive all debts! Also, regarding this thing that you call “the Christian religion”, my opinions are as follows…

And you can imagine the type of things that Jesus would say about this latter topic of interest. I’m sure that he would have primarily positive reactions & only a couple negative criticisms.

Now should I ask the same question about Socrates? — OK I will: How did Socrates change the world?

Being self-centered I’d rather move on to introspections: What do I myself desire to accomplish in this world? — The answer is: I hope that I’ll get to die just once. That’s my mission: & it’s not too big of a deal when it happens, altho I’d rather that it didn’t take TOO long and that the road ain’t TOO bumpy. As long as it ends in death, I’ll be totally satisfied.

I want people to say: “Before Bryan Ray, people pretty much did the same stuff that they keep doing now that Bryan Ray has vanished.” That would be nice. Then I’d know that I didn’t screw anything up, here on Earth.

I’m sorta trying to hint that I don’t understand those scientists who are at work developing potions that will make them live forever. Why would you wish for boundless life as a scientist? Wouldn’t that be boring? I wanna say to them: “You’re already in hell; why do you wanna stick around?” But they can’t hear me because the glass is too thick. (I’m imagining them as residing in a glass-plated lab-room.)

*

Now these two ideas that I’ve put forth in this entry so far, the idea of changing the world & the idea of immortality, coax my fancy to revert back to what I was struggling with yesterday: the notion of narrative, in the popular notion of “telling tall tales”. For the tallest tale ever told incorporates both world-change and endless existence (albeit the loss thereof) — it’s that same old yarn that I can’t stop spinning & tangling: Genesis chapter 2 thru 4. The canonical version that’s given in modern bibles focuses on how the human world changed to mortal from immortal (once our land-LORD barred access to the Tree of Life). I’m intrigued by how change might work on change itself; yet, since the best I can do is augment a snapshot of flux, let me start with a faithful retelling & then grow less faithful. First, here’s the pristine original:

STORY

• Adam & Eve, the first human beings, are sculpted out of mud by Jehovah God.
• Jehovah God evicts the first humans from his pleasure-dome.
• Cain & Abel, the first humans created by the act of fornication, step onstage.
• God gives Abel’s character a more favorable review than Cain’s character, because he likes the actor whom he cast for the role of Abel slightly more than the actor whom the casting associate chose to play Cain.
• Cain slays Abel.

That’s all there is to it. I’ve left out no detail.

Now, what if all the above were to happen exactly as printed; except the last line, instead of reading “Cain slays Abel”, would say the polar opposite: “Abel slays Cain”?

TRUE STORY, 2nd draft

• Adam & Eve, the first movie stars, are created by Jehovah the director.
• Jehovah banishes the first humans from the play; but the offstage-action continues to be recorded “behind the scenes”, because this is a documentary film.
• Cain & Abel are conceived in the studio: Adam fathers Abel, out in the back lot; meanwhile, the director himself fathers Cain accidentally during a tryst in the dressing room. (Jehovah appears in full costume & makeup throughout the controversial encounter.)
• Director Jehovah tells his cinematographer Michael (the archangel), to shoot the fall-guy (Abel) with a handheld camera in full-color & widescreen format; whereas his commandment regarding the leading man (Cain) is that he should be presented in glorious black-&-white, in medium-shots of a 4:3 aspect ratio.
• The film strikes documentary-gold when Abel slays Cain.

Now why is the derivative narrative superior to its original? (Do not say: Cuz the last shall be first.) And which movie is the remake? Might the prequel come off truer as a sequel? What would be the meaning of the prefix “ur-” in this case, if we were to christen the second draft The Ur-Genesis and release it in 3-D?

Now let me screen one last attempt, only because this is almost fun:

STORY (2020 version, director’s cut)

• God builds two humans out of wood.
• God burns down his studio; yet the statues remain mysteriously unconsumed.
• God plants one statue atop his favorite mount, Sinai; then God displays his best-loved statue upon the holy mountain of Horeb, after modifying the statue to be ambulant, so that it can walk to & fro, and go up & down in the midst of the stones of fire.
• God beguiles himself into kissing both statues & they then become living human beings.
• The Sinai statue brings forth wooden Abels spawned in its own image uncontrollably, like Goethe’s “Pupil in Magic” (Der Zauberlehrling, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”).
• The Horeb statue slays itself.

So this is preferable to Cain killing Abel or vice versa, as it’s always better to realize that everything is related, thus any being preying upon a fellow creature is tantamount to self-slaughter.

But I feel that there’s still a flaw in the above presentation, since the end scene of this plot seems to glorify deicide — that was not the filmmakers’ intention at all. The aim was to say something similar to William Blake’s harper (from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell) who sings the following theme:

He who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.

Also it’s notoriously difficult to find decent translations of the poetry of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, but I wish that I could’ve figured out how to include this little excerpt into the story above — I wanted to put it right before the ending, but it felt like it took up too much space; so I’ll share it here at the after-ending, like something that an aquatic train drags in its wake while plashing thru a tunnel:

Ah, he’s coming! see,
      Great is my dismay!
⁠⁠⁠Spirits raised by me
      ⁠⁠⁠⁠Vainly would I lay!