Preface#
Moralistic#
Preachers are literary critics of the Bible with a clear formula for interpreting scripture to address contemporary crises. I agree with your breakdown into strategy, payoff, and equilibrium; it captures the cadence and method behind their rhetoric.
Strategy: Preachers do scour scripture with intent, often selecting passages that align with their audience’s perceived struggles. This resembles a literary analysis where they identify the “textual” opportunity. Their choice of Old and New Testament scriptures allows them to create parallels that transcend time, positioning the Bible as eternally
relevant. I see this as the part where they start drawing the audience in, using a universally understood problem—war, poverty, sickness, or existential despair—and framing it as the spiritual battleground.Payoff: This will-to-power element is crucial. By interpreting the scripture through a lens of overcoming or enduring in spite of the odds, they’re not just offering consolation but a roadmap to spiritual dominance, or at least survival. Evangelical preachers, in particular, love this part—claiming
victoriesover personal or societal adversities, linking faith with empowerment, which is, of course, quite Nietzschean in its undercurrent of self-overcoming.Equilibrium: The notion of resilience or revolution as the final equilibrium is where it gets particularly interesting. Preachers often push toward resilience as a kind of divine
acceptance, but there’s also a latent call for revolution—sometimes spiritual, sometimes literal. Depending on the denomination or theological stance, this can range from turning the other cheek to shaking the foundations of society itself.
In a way, they’re delivering a psychological narrative arc much like storytelling—a call to action, confrontation, and a resolution, all framed by sacred texts. Do you see this pattern influencing the broader cultural narratives we’re immersed in, particularly outside the religious context?
Show code cell source
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Create x values representing the six stages, and create y values using a sine function
x = np.linspace(0, 2 * np.pi, 1000)
y = np.sin(x)
# Define the stages
stages = ["Birth", "Growth", "Stagnation", "Decline", "Existential", "Rebirth"]
# Define the x-ticks for the labeled points
x_ticks = np.linspace(0, 2 * np.pi, 6)
# Set up the plot
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
# Plot the sine wave
plt.plot(x, y, color='blue')
# Fill the areas under the curve for each stage and label directly on the graph
plt.fill_between(x, y, where=(x < x_ticks[1]), color='lightblue', alpha=0.5)
plt.text(x_ticks[0] + (x_ticks[1] - x_ticks[0]) / 2, 0.5, "Birth", fontsize=12, ha='center')
plt.fill_between(x, y, where=(x_ticks[1] <= x) & (x < x_ticks[2]), color='lightgreen', alpha=0.5)
plt.text(x_ticks[1] + (x_ticks[2] - x_ticks[1]) / 2, 0.5, "Growth", fontsize=12, ha='center')
plt.fill_between(x, y, where=(x_ticks[2] <= x) & (x < x_ticks[3]), color='lightyellow', alpha=0.5)
plt.text(x_ticks[2] + (x_ticks[3] - x_ticks[2]) / 2, 0.5, "Stagnation", fontsize=12, ha='center')
plt.fill_between(x, y, where=(x_ticks[3] <= x) & (x < x_ticks[4]), color='lightcoral', alpha=0.5)
plt.text(x_ticks[3] + (x_ticks[4] - x_ticks[3]) / 2, 0.5, "Decline", fontsize=12, ha='center')
plt.fill_between(x, y, where=(x_ticks[4] <= x) & (x < x_ticks[5]), color='lightgray', alpha=0.5)
plt.text(x_ticks[4] + (x_ticks[5] - x_ticks[4]) / 2, 0.5, "Existential", fontsize=12, ha='center')
plt.fill_between(x, y, where=(x_ticks[5] <= x), color='lightpink', alpha=0.5)
plt.text(x_ticks[5] + (2 * np.pi - x_ticks[5]) / 2, 0.5, " Rebirth", fontsize=12, ha='center')
# Set x-ticks and labels
plt.xticks(x_ticks, ["1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6"])
# Label x axis
plt.xlabel("Phases")
# Remove y-axis, top, and right borders
plt.gca().spines['top'].set_visible(False)
plt.gca().spines['right'].set_visible(False)
plt.gca().spines['left'].set_visible(False)
plt.gca().get_yaxis().set_visible(False)
# Title
plt.title("Tragical Historical Fractal")
# Show the plot
plt.savefig('figures/logo.png', bbox_inches='tight', transparent=True)
plt.show()
Fig. 1 Genealogy of Morality. The chief stance of this book is that the entire span of human history is a fractal based on the \(sin(t)\) seen above, beginning & ending with a rebirth, renaissance, or reharmonization, and eternally recurring in a self-similar manner ad infinitum. Marxists and monotheistic religions have faith in a final phase that ushers in the end of history with an eternal state of growth & welfare. This is the historical-dramatical literary approach. But then there are natural-born surfers 🏄 who only see beautiful waves 🌊 when they see the arc of history & life.#
Aesthetic#
This idea of preachers as literary critics of the Bible and their formula of strategy-payoff-equilibrium does seem to parallel Mozart’s approach to composition in some surprising ways, though the spirit behind the two is fundamentally different.
Strategy: Just as preachers select scripture to connect to contemporary struggles, Mozart, particularly in his operas, chose themes and narratives that resonated with the tensions of his era. His works often embodied the social, political, and emotional turmoil of the
zeitgeist—whether it was The Marriage of Figaro’s critique of class structures or Don Giovanni’s moral ambiguity. He, too, identified a “strategic” opportunity, but his selection wasn’t moralistic—it was more about the human condition, its follies, and its inevitable contradictions. In his music, you hear a tension between joy and despair, wit and tragedy, giving it a universality that transcends its immediate cultural context.Payoff: The will-to-power in Mozart’s music isn’t about dominance over odds but an assertion of the emotional truth. His compositions surge and swell, often undercutting expectation, drawing us into the rawness of human experience. Think of the Requiem or the Kyrie eleison in C Minor Mass—there’s an urgency and power that doesn’t feel calculated but spontaneous, born from an almost divine instinct. If preachers turn scripture into empowerment, Mozart turns music into catharsis. The payoff is emotional transcendence, a shared human connection through the beauty and
tensionof sound, rather than a prescriptive path forward.Equilibrium: This is where they differ most. Preachers often aim for resilience or revolution—a clear narrative arc that leaves the congregation with a sense of resolution, even if it’s just endurance. Mozart, on the other hand, rarely gives you clean resolution. His equilibrium is often
fleeting, unstable, particularly in his later works. The final note of a movement might sound peaceful, but it’s always haunted by what came before. Mozart’s equilibrium is less about closure and more about ambiguity—he leaves space for doubt, wonder, even the possibility of failure (Don Giovanni’s end is brutal, not triumphant).
The spirit of Mozart feels less didactic, less about interpreting life with certainty and more about reveling in its complexities. Where the preacher seeks to guide the flock toward spiritual or moral clarity, Mozart’s music thrives in the unresolved, in the chaotic dance of human emotions and fate. It’s less about overcoming and more about expressing the tragedy, beauty, and contradictions of life as they are.