Dedicated to: Yocelin

Introduction.

Most life advice often is to focus on only one big ideology or idea: Stoicism, Christianism, Buddhism… you name it. Under these doctrines there are people who are so sure of the coherence and potential of them that they justify their mastery.

By being masters of something narrow they indeed can become very powerful, both in their individual improvement —Just as Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus with stoicism— or their power over other people —Just like Cesare Borgia or the pope Alexander VI.

In this interpretation we can begin to note the similarities between the mastery of both philosophy and martial arts, and just like the former is known for, everyone has a particular style that modifies their foundational basis, sometimes they make it better, sometimes they make it worse.

Nonetheless while systems of beliefs are often quite rigid, the martial arts explicitly demonstrated the superiority of the mixture of multiple arts over the traditional ones. I argue that a mixture of doctrines and philosophies can also be superior.

The false alternative.

Reality, for its inherent chaotic bias, is an limitless producer of suffering. While we have tried to justify this fact by many interpretations, one of the commonest being the idea that everything is a part of a bigger picture.

When we think about the big picture —being this God, the universe or the destiny— everything that we do, no matter how vicious, questionable or counterintuitive, appears to fall in place smoothly with this metaphysical and permanent blueprint.

We make sense… until we start to consider how random and uncertain —a literal and physical uncertainty inherent in the nature of electrons— is everything around us.

Just like the example above it does not take much to demolish these beliefs down. For every new good theory there are millions of questions that need to be answered to justify the mere existence of them.

Therefore, what can we do to justify an appropriate answer to the seemingly arbitrary and endless presence of suffering? We can start by thinking that our life may not be deliberately trying to make us suffer, but our consciousness is interpreting as it is.

As we know, our senses are not reality. What we experience as our reality is nothing but a small and processed portion of the waves, radiation and electromagnetic fields out there.

While our sensations may not be accurate we sure need them to navigate through the world. The same thing that causes suffering is the one that helps us experience life in the first place.

Trying to eliminate suffering through the elimination of our senses is possible, but that doesn’t mean it is rational. Rene Descartes said in his Discourse of the Method “I think, therefore I am” denoting the justification for his existence by his mere thought.

Our thinking is always based on the interpretation of our senses, therefore even if we were clinically “alive” without anything to interpret we would fall down into a real life limbo in which the proof for our existence would be doubtful.

On the other hand, if we eradicate our senses by the eradication of our life we would end in an equivalent state: nothingness.

By trying to kill the parasite we killed everything. Both our annihilation and the doubtful limbo get the same empty result, therefore, this choice—which I choose to name as the suicidal alternative— is a false alternative.

Our real —an alleviation of suffering without ending the joys or possibility of existence— alternative in contrast requires us to confront the terrifying challenges that our experience puts in front of us.

To do so three archetypes —also known as recurrent symbols— come into play: I will call them: the warrior, the dancer and the nonplayer.

The archetype alternative. 

A warrior is someone that sees the activity of toughening himself as an act of ultimate concern. He does so he can thrive against literally anything life puts against him. A warrior is an ultimate David facing the strongest Goliath.

While resilient to death the warrior suffers from the paradox of his strength. As he believes that every challenge can be managed by brute force he can, and often does, forget about strategy, easier paths or cooperation, but above all this he forgets —or refuses to accept— his vulnerable nature as a human.

The warrior, loving the challenges and the thrill of battle, can in fact choose one which he will not be able to handle.

Another archetype is the dancer. She is someone that has learned how to understand the flow of life and has built the skill to go along with it. She sees the opportunities and setbacks everywhere, but rather than getting anxious she responds with the most appropriate force, not too much, not too little.

Her way of living resembles that of the artist from an outsider point of view; she appears to have nearly everything planned, but from the inside a great and powerful turmoil is happening.

It is by the gradual mastery of this internal discord that the dancer can learn to express his energy outwards; the place where she finds her movements.

The weakness of the dancer is that she believes that because his gracefulness is effective that is how things ought to be. Blinded by her plenitude when she puts foot unto an unexpected realm or challenge she loses control. Her wisdom is not complete enough to find a choreography for every kind of music.

Finally, the nonplayer is the most mundane archetype of the three. It does not matter if the nonplayer has awareness or not about his vulnerability, it is irrelevant, he ignores, escapes and even denies the existence of suffering.

Reality bestows a truth that the nonplayer simply refuses to accept. Unlike the suicidal alternative the nonplayer rationalizes that the best way to opt out of an unwanted game is not by ceasing to be a player, but by rejecting the game all together.

The nonplayer weakness is that he does not understand that by rejecting the game he is rejecting his life. He stays in the gray area in which he is not courageous enough either to live, or to die. What is the difference between the nonplayer and the doubtful existence? That the limbo of the nonplayer is completely certain.

The warrior is the death alternative. He will die fighting.

The dancer is the life alternative. She will die living.

The nonplayer is the certain limbo alternative. He dies without a life.

By just describing the nature of these 3 archetypes you probably had a mixture of feelings and sensations. While your reactions of love and hate can have a lot of possibilities, what is important is that there is one to which you identified the most.

Acknowledging the reactions and sensations you got from any archetype is important, as they will help reveal your nature. The more confusing, rash or unexpected these sensations were, the better.

You are a person, not an archetype, so it is important to note that there is also the possibility of modeling yourself by a spectrum of the triad. I will probably create a test later to do this with more ease.

Nonetheless the archetype to which you formed the strongest relationship matters, as it reveals how you sense and react to their characteristic behavior, a disgust, love or tendency to be a certain way.

While there may be pride —or cynicism in the case of the nonplayer— by our similitude with these characters it is important to note that none of them is completely right; they all fall back into the vice of refusing.

The warrior refuses to believe in his own vulnerability, the dancer refuses to believe in challenge and the nonplayer refuses to acknowledge his responsibility.

Refusing nature will inevitably lead to unhappiness, as no matter how much we wish, the world will never fulfill our desires. Rather than trying to manifest a perfect reality in our minds it is much better just to accept that challenge is omnipresent, our vulnerability is permanent and that we have nearly always the opportunity to act to make things better.

Instead of adopting the archetypes —and therefore their vices— it is better to isolate and combine their best characteristics into a coherent new self, we can portrait the archetype of ultimate meaning: the Übermensch.

The Übermensch is an ideal created by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his book “Thus spoke Zarathustra” that has the defining principle of being the man who is capable of creating and following new and idiosyncratic —unique features of a person— principles.

Because he is in some way beyond what a person is capable of doing, the Übermensch is also known as the overman or superman —both names used in comics that have no relation to the philosophical idea.

Nonetheless, while the Übermensch can be labeled as superior he still is a human: he is not invincible, he is not rational and it may not be even a “good” person… he is just someone who is willing to be bold and find justification for his life without recurring to lies, willful blindness —consciously avoiding facts— or peer pressure.

He is the ultimate source of meaning because he does not need to find nothing: he sees an implicit justification to life; his meaning is life itself.

By attempting to take the skin of the Übermensch you can have the best of the archetypes while also limiting or even eradicating their weaknesses.

You can have the strength of the warrior, the grace of the dancer and the humility–or cowardice, however you want to call it– of the nonplayer while recognizing your vulnerability, challenge and responsibility.

How to attain the Übermensch. 

Therefore, how do you attain this archetype? By encompassing your whole humanity. You do not try to find any spiritual shortcut, you just act, experiment and adjust your skills as you need.

While it may not be explicit the role of the Übermensch can also be highly correlated to flexibility so keeping our mind open and agile will most probably help. The dancer mentality can provide that flexibility.

You also need some danger. Like Nietzsche said himself “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman —a rope over an abyss…”. No one can realistically think to fulfill his greatest potential without a challenge that is difficult enough to threaten us.

We are our best at our worst, so to be the very best we will need to have the worst of challenges. Like Carl Jung —the swiss depth psychologist— said “No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.” The warrior mentality comes in handy here.

Finally, while we could theoretically improve to infinity by incorporating all of the thousand or millions archetypes known, we are severely limited by time. We need to prioritize and be mindful of which ones we will pay attention to and which ones we will refuse to take responsibility.

As it may be a severe surprise, the nonplayer shines here. We need his distraction and ignorance to be able to focus attentively to the things that truly matter to us.

Attempt to fulfill the ideal of the Übermensch by your own terms —you may or may not take my advice— and see by yourself how the opportunity to transcend your limitations while staying with the gift of humanity is now something attainable to you.

Conclusion.

These four archetypes are just a small sample of ways to deal with our existence, but there are many others to which you can research and apply.

As everyone of us possess existential uniqueness —the fact that there is only one real and concrete us in all the extension of space-time— the characteristics that determine our lives will vary greatly, therefore our selection of archetypes will also vary.

Just like ancient martial artists used the evolutionary wisdom and techniques of powerful animals you can use the archetypes to subtract their intelligence and power.

Remember that while you should use the resources, knowledge and wisdom available to you, you shouldn’t be paralyzed by convection; be willing to expand, blend, add or eliminate your raw material until you find something that works perfectly to you.

Strive to reach your fullest potential and justify your life by nothing else for the sake of it.

Without anything more to say, goodbye!

Photo by Дмитрий Хрусталев-Григорьев on Unsplash

You can support me on Patreon.