[Ouroboros]

من برده رو به همون معنای عام به کار بردم،نه اشاره به یک مورد خاص و موارد ذهنی هم مدنظرم بود.
میل به رهایی همونطور که گفتم یک حالت انتقالی هست،بدون اینکه میل به بردگی و برده داری وجود داشته باشه میل به رهایی وجود نداره ولی این باعث میشه هرجا این دو وجود داشته باشند میل به رهایی هم باشه.
توضیح من نه اشتباه تاریخی و نه شرایط اجتماعی دقیقا همین طبیعت انسان رو عامل نهایی میدونه.

تحلیل که من میپذیرمش این هست که برده در نهایت از ارباش خسته میشه(دین،سنت،حکومت و...) و میخواد که "آزاد" باشه ولی این ازادی تا وقتی برده هدف مشخصی(سرنگونی ارباب) داره مطبوع و خوشایند جلوه میکنه،وقتی ارباب کنار زده میشه برده دچار پوچی(و به تبع اون اشفتگی زیاد) میشه چون دیگه هدفی نداره،پس میخواد به وضعیت پایدار گذشته برگرده چه در نقش ارباب جدید و چه در نقش رعیت.
و این سیکل تکرار میشه.

+اگر میل به بردگی یا میل به برده داری به تنهایی وجود داشتند نه برده ای وجود میداشت و نه برده داری و نه تلاشی برای رهایی.ولی وقتی این دو میل با هم وجود داره این اجتناب ناپذیر هست که میل به رهایی هم بوجود بیاد. هر برده داری هر قدر هم عالی نمیتونه تا ابد برده ها رو "راضی" کنه،مگر اینکه اساسا با دستکاری ژنتیکی کاری کنه که نارضایتی مزمن انسان از زندگی،از بین بره.

Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their
primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as
atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a
different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values
of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these it is possible to
establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State. The idea behind
such a State is the priority of the person over any abstract social, political, or juridical entity, and not
of the person as a neuter, leveled reality, a mere number in the world of quantity and universal
suffrage.
The perfection of the human being is the end to which every healthy social institution must be
subordinated, and it must be promoted as much as possible. This perfection must be conceived on
the basis of a process of individuation and of progressive differentiation. In this regard we must
consider the view expressed by Paul de Lagarde, which can be expressed approximately in these
terms: everything that is under the aegis of humanitarianism, the doctrine of natural law, and
collectivity corresponds to the inferior dimension. Merely being a “man” is a minus compared to
being a man belonging to a given nation and society; this, in turn, is still a minus compared to beinga “person,” a quality that implies the shift to a plane that is higher than the merely naturalistic and
“social” one. In turn, being a person is something that needs to be further differentiated into
degrees, functions, and dignities with which, beyond the social and horizontal plane, the properly
political world is defined vertically in its bodies, functional classes, corporations, or particular
unities, according to a pyramid-like structure, at the top of which one would expect to find people
who more or less embody the absolute person. What is meant by ”absolute person” is the supremely
realized person who represents the end, and the natural center of gravity, of the whole system. The
“absolute person” is obviously the opposite of the individual. The atomic, unqualified, socialized, or
standardized unity to which the individual corresponds is opposed in the absolute person by the
actual synthesis of the fundamental possibilities and by the full control of the powers inherent in the
idea of man (in the limiting case), or of a man of a given race (in a more relative, specialized, and
historical domain): that is, by an extreme individuation that corresponds to a de-individualization
and to a certain universalization of the types corresponding to it. Thus, this is the disposition
required to embody pure authority, to assume the symbol and the power of sovereignty, or the form
from above, namely the imperium.

نقل قول بالا از ژولیوس اوولا در کتاب «مردان میان ویرانه‌ها»ست. این یکی هم از همانجاست، ببینید چقدر زیبا مفهوم را تشریح می‌کند:

An analogous situation occurs where certain men have been followed, obeyed, and venerated
for displaying a high degree of endurance, responsibility, lucidity, and a dangerous, open, and heroic
life that others could not; it was decisive here to be able to recognize a special right and a special
dignity in a free way. To depend on such leaders constituted not the subjugation, but rather the
elevation of the person; this, however, makes no sense to the defenders of the “immortal principles”
and to the supporters of “human dignity” because of their obtuseness. It is only the presence of
superior individuals that bestows on a multitude of beings and on a system of disciplines of material
life a meaning and a justification they previously lacked. It is the inferior who needs the superior,
and not the other way around. The inferior never lives a fuller life than when he feels his existence is
subsumed in a greater order endowed with a center; then he feels like a man standing before leaders
of men, and experiences the pride of serving as a free man in his proper station. The noblest things
that human nature has to offer are found in similar situations, and not in the anodyne and shallow
climate proper to democratic and social ideologies

.

شما می‌توانید اینرا شخصا و رأسا امتحان بکنید. اربابی لطفی‌ست که سوی قوی به بنده می‌کند و بندگی پاداشی‌ست که سوی ضعیف برای پذیرفته شدن از سوی او می‌پردازد. این رابطه تنها زمانی می‌تواند از سوی بنده مورد تشکیک قرار بگیرد که اصالت و شهامت و ... در یک کلام آنچه ارباب را ارباب کرده به چالش کشیده می‌شود. زمانی که او دیگر «برتر» نیست. قیام برپاد سلطه‌ی او برآمده از آنست که سلطه‌ی او مشروعیت خود را از دست داده، زیرا دیگر از جایگاهی نابرابر اعمال نمی‌شود.

من قبلا اینرا به بلاغت خاصی گفته بودم که فرض مثال زنان وقتی می‌خواهند از انقیاد خارج بشوند، در حقیقت می‌خواهند از انقیاد شما خارج بشوند تا بتوانند به انقیاد من در بیایند.
ولی بخوان این نویسنده را چیزهای زیادی برای آموختن دارد.