Lordship and Bondage: Our Hero Enters a Relationship, Fights to the Death, and Gets A Job

Lordship and Bondage

Introduction
Everybody wants to be noticed. More specifically, everybody wants someone to notice them. As we shall see here, that desire for others love and affection is not a desire for a luxury, but rather a need. A self-consciousness is a self-consciousness in actual fact, truly itself, if other self-consciousnesses notice it. We learned in the articles of sense-certainty, perception, and understanding, how consciousness transitioned from immediate sense-knowledge of an object to knowledge of self, which itself turns out to be immediate. Self-consciousness is self-aware, and this self-awareness is immediate. In this article, we see what will happen to self-consciousness the first time it notices another self-consciousness. At first it will be a slow process that needs time to unfold, but at a certain point, self-consciousness will become accustomed to the process in which it is about to embark. Consciousness of others will become an immediate process, which contains within itself the mediation, and the history of its unfolding that we shall see in this article. In fact, this is what happens behind the scenes when you meet other people - specifically romantic interests, strangers, employers, managers, and employees - and which sets the tone of those kinds of interaction. Something different happens with family, friends, and fellow compatriots - this is a topic for another article.

At the end of the last article, Self-consciousness has set a goal for itself. The subsequent sections, and there are many of them, are its attempt to make this goal a reality. The goal is a state of being is a higher form of existence which Hegel calls "Spirit". Our relation to family and friends is a form of spirit. Spirit is a state of being, the State of being, or just simply, the State, that is occupied by many individuals where each individual is a self-consciousness in actual fact. Each self-consciousness is, for-itself, the supreme standard of Absolute truth. Yet this state of being is not merely an arousing suspicion, but an enduring, ineradicable reality. Each individual self-consciousness lives in state of freedom and are independent of each other. Yet at the same time, they recognize themselves as the component elements of the same substance. The Spirit is an "I that is We, and a We that is I". Each self-consciousness mutually and constitutively recognizes themselves, as well as each other, equally as self-consciousnesses. This State is not the communist paradise where all are equal, as in, everyone is the same. This state has elements of communism, it is true, but also elements of laissez-faire capitalism. I shall make a proclamation here, however: At the time of this writing, Spirit is in danger of dissolving. This is the danger with globalization and the influence of egalitarian ideologies on our media, politics, academic institutions, and law.

Self-consciousness is aiming to become part of a family, an economy, a State. The pride of belonging to a group. Familial pride. National pride.

However, let us refrain from discussing Spirit and the State any further, since for self-consciousness at this point in the development, Spirit and the State is only a vague awareness. Self-consciousness needs to confirm its arousing suspicion that it is for itself the highest form of truth, the Absolute. It needs to become self-certain, i.e. supremely self-confident. In lacking confidence, its conception of itself remains only an arousing suspicion, not the living reality that it is supposed to be. In order to make this suspicion into a reality, self-consciousness must make something in the objective world surrender its independence. Only another self-consciousness Self-consciousness still has not found even another self-consciousness that it can compel to negate its own independence. Henceforth, self-consciousness will attempt to bring this State, where its denizens recognize themselves as selves (true self-consciousnesses), as well as each other as other and as themselves, into being. It will compare its relating to itself, as well as its relationship to other self-consciousnesses, at each point in the development with how it is supposed to relate to itself, as well as to others, in the State. The State of Spirit is the goal, and we, as readers, now have for ourselves a definite goal, a destination that self-consciousness is trying to establish.

Self-consciousness is not aware of the State as concretely as we have described it here. If it could speak, it would not even understand what the term, the State with a capital 'S', refers to. We only bring up the State now because it is useful for us, as readers, to have a sense of what kind of path self-consciousness is going to take. Recall from the first article that when something is brought into the awareness of a consciousness, it is altered. The same is true for self-consciousness. When one self-consciousness is brought into the awareness of another self-consciousness, it is altered. You change when people look at you. What you change into is who you really are. Let us look at exactly what happens, using only the rules that we have allowed ourselves to use, in more detail.

Duplicated Self-Consciousness

Self-consciousness is in the same vicinity, for the first time, of a second self-consciousness. Each is within range of the other's senses, and there exists the potential that one notice the other. This potential has not yet been actualized. Each is minding his own business. They have not yet noticed each other. Both self-consciousnesses are a product of the development which we have seen. The second can sense, perceive, understand, and is just as self-aware of the other. In short, each is just as much a self-enclosed unity as itself; each is self-relating; each self-consciousness is a being-for-self. Just as we saw with the singular thing and force, self-consciousness contains within its own self a kind of related-to-otherness. Self-consciousness is aware of itself; in being aware of itself it thinks about itself. When it thinks about itself, it makes itself an object for itself to think about. Thus, self-consciousness is just as much a multiplicity as it is a unity; it is a relation-to-otherness. Self-consciousness contains within its own self being-for-another. But that "other" is self-consciousness itself. The being-for-another in truth is only being-for-self. Being-for-self is really being-for-another, which is really being-for-self. Like becomes unlike, and unlike becomes like.

Here they are not noticing each other, and have not yet noticed each other.

Both self-consciousnesses, which confront each other, are a self-awareness. Each are within their own selves a self-relatedness, being-for-self. They have not yet noticed each other. Each is still thinking about itself, or more specifically, himself/herself. This kind of self-consciousness belongs to a sexually reproducing species. A man could be confronting a man, a woman could be confronting a woman, a man could be confronting a woman, or a woman could be confronting a man. These are all possibilities. For brevity, and generality, we shall say that "it" confronts "it", rather than having to concern ourselves with the pronouns, "he" or "she". Anyways, in being self-aware, each self-consciousness makes itself into an object for itself, so each contains within itself relation-to-otherness, being-for-another. But this "other" is really self-consciousness itself, so this being-for-another is really being-for-self. Being-for-self is really being-for-another, which is really being-for-self. Like becomes unlike, and unlike becomes like. This is really just a repetition of the previous paragraph. Only this time we are considering the nature of this relationship with two consciousnesses in mind. They still have not noticed each other. Each self is for itself Absolute. Each self is selfish.

Now, the one self-consciousness for the first time notices the other self-consciousness. Each understands that the other is self-aware. Thus, each sees in the other an aspect of self-relatedness, being-for-self. The one sees that the other is a unity, an enclosed system, a living body that senses, perceives, has intelligence, is self-aware, and has desires. The one self-consciousness sees the process of its own kind of self-relating, its being-for-self, in another self. One self-consciousness sees itself in another. Each self-consciousness is self-aware, so each takes itself to be an object for itself. Each, as we have mentioned, contains within its own self related-to-otherness, being-for-another. In knowing that the other is a self-consciousness, each self-consciousness knows that the other contains within its self being-for-another. And indeed, not only is self-consciousness related to other internally, but externally. Each self-consciousness relates to the other in the real living world of appearances, of space and time. Thus, again, self-consciousness sees its own being-for-another operating in the other self-consciousness.

Since the other too obeys the inverted law: like becomes unlike, and unlike becomes like, the one self-consciousness recognizes the other as an expression of infinity. Both come from the same source, so the one self-consciousness, in its mind, no longer holds the other opposed to it as other. They are the same. Their external relationship to each other, their being-for-another, turns out to be in truth a relationship between the same being; one self-consciousness identifies with the other. They relate not as a duality, but a unity. The external being-for-another shows itself to be in truth, being-for-self. But there is a contradiction. They are still two distinct bodies, and these bodies cannot merge. Their being-for-self is only an abstract notion. It seems to not be confirmed by reality.

Further, self-consciousness, in relating to another loses its independence. In being aware of the other, the other is aware of it. What we have discussed in the last two paragraphs occurs for both self-consciousnesses simultaneously. Each self-consciousness, further, sees that the other is an actual living self-consciousness who is part of the living objective world of appearances. Neither is merely the figment of the other's imagination. Each has the arousing suspicion that it is independent of the objective living world of appearances. But for each, the objective living world of appearances continually asserts its independence over both self-consciousnesses. Both self-consciousnesses related to the world, and are not allowed to remain pre-occupied with themselves, by feelings the pangs of desire: hunger, thirst, etc.

Since each self-consciousness has a body, that body is a part of the living objective world of appearances. Since self-consciousness is a part of a sexually reducing species, and the life of the species is dependent on each of its members to reproduce, each member has embedded within it the desire to reproduce. Each self-consciousness, therefore, relates to some other self-consciousnesses by means of desiring their physical bodies. At this stage, the one self-consciousness is merely an object for the other. The one is aware that the other is a self-consciousness, but the other self-consciousness does not, for the first, have the status of being the Absolute standard of truth. Each self-consciousness, in desiring the body of the other, remains ultimately a selfish self.

Still, the one self-consciousness has an arousing suspicion of its independence from the living objective world of appearances. When a self-consciousness desires the body of another self-consciousness, the satisfaction that it has through being independently self-relating, concerned with itself in a state of equilibrium, minding its own business, is cancelled. Self-consciousness is dependent on the physical body of another. Through the physical living body of one self-consciousness, the objective living world of appearances, and the species as a whole, asserts its independence over the individual self-consciousness with indifference and impunity.

Ideally, same-sex relationships are perfectly equal.

This desire is only satisfied if each self-consciousness desires the body of the other, and each treats the other equally as object, and no further. Since self-consciousness belongs to a sexually reproducing species, there is a male and a female, in general; in the case of homo sapiens sapiens, there is a man and a woman. In this case, we are here speaking of a man desiring the physical body of another man, and a woman desiring the physical body of another woman. In general, self-consciousness desires the body of another self-consciousness, a member of its own species with the same type of body, with the same kind of reproductive organs as itself. Only in the one desiring the other does the relationship form, and does the sex happen, in no particular sequential order.

Sex is the cancelling out of difference between two self-consciousness, by the union of two bodies. and the union of the one with the other, and of both with their infinite nature. Yet sex does not last forever. It ends when one, or the other, or both, attain satisfaction. Once satisfaction is attained, the desire that one self-consciousness has for the body of another subsides, and it is again in a state of equilibrium, where each relates to itself as itself, minding its own business. Each is one with itself, and remains distinct from, yet at one, with its own infinite nature. Each is in love with itself, and in loving itself it loves the other. This is the true nature of love; it is equal and is, at first, only approachable by same-sex couples. Something different occurs when a man wants the physical body of a woman, or vice versa. Since one self-consciousness, inhabiting one kind of body, desires another, that inhabits a different kind of body, there is difference in the living objective world of appearances.

We shall leave it at that, for we cannot explore the nature of heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual love, without first proceeding onwards and allowing self-consciousness to examine itself. Even in the ideal and perfect same-sex relationship, there is still tension. Self-consciousness was supposed to be the Absolute standard of truth for itself, and itself alone. It desires the body of another, not only does the one self-consciousness surrender its own independence, and becomes dependent on the other's body for the satisfaction of its desire, and the cancellation of its dissatisfaction. One self-consciousness, therefore, makes another self-consciousness its Absolute standard of truth against which one models himself against. One self-consciousness pedestalizes another.

The very nature of self-consciousness makes it necessary for one to put the other on a pedestal.

In a truly equal relationship, each self-consciousness would pedestalize the other, where each becomes both dependent from the other, yet remains independent from the other. This is the prisoner's dilemma. Neither benefits if neither pedestalizes the other. Both self-consciousnesses benefit if each pedestalizes the other; but if one does not go through the pedestalization of the other, and the other does pedestalize, only one self-consciousness benefits. This scenario is the most likely to happen, and it is what we see in our world. The pedestalizing self-consciousness loses its independence, and becomes dependent on the other, while the other, who is put on the pedestal and does not pedestalize, remains independent, and has another dependent on it. The non-pedestalizing self-consciousness has another self-consciousness affect on its own its own negation of itself, of its own accord. In the form of relationships, self-consciousness finds what it sought. The non-pedestalizing self-consciousness becomes the dominant partner, and if it is a pair of male self-consciousnesses, the dominant one penetrates. In a lesbian couple, the one pedestalized partner becomes the dominant one. In a heterosexual couple, the male is supposed to remain dominant in this manner, yet he is prone to fail in being the one who should penetrate. He pedestalizes the woman and becomes submissive, losing his dominance, and along with it, the woman's attraction. If the pedestalized still finds the pedestalizer useful, like a thing, the pedestalized placed the pedestalizer in the friend-zone.

The pedestalizing self-consciousness has surrendered its independence. Its Absolute standard of truth is not itself, but the pedestalized self-consciousness. The pedestalizing self-consciousness is dependent on the pedestalized self-consciousness. It does not want the other to leave it, thus, the pedestalizing self-consciousness becomes supplicating. This self-consciousness becomes the submissive one, and hence the one who is penetrated. This self-consciousness is the woman, or the "bitch". Sometimes, however, she will fail to submit and become dominant. In losing her submissiveness, she loses her attraction for the male, and is prone to cheat on him. This, of course, also applies to same sex couples. The pedestalizing self-consciousness becomes the submissive one.

Now the pedestalized self-consciousness finds itself the real living actual fact of its independence that it first sought. It is truly self-consciousness. Another self-consciousness is dependent on it, and hence affirms the arousing suspicion of the first that it is independent. Yet, the pedestalizing self-consciousness is dependent on the pedestalized. Just like the play of forces, where the soliciting force turns out to be the solicited, which turns out to be the soliciting, the independent, pedestalized, self-consciousness turns out to be dependent on the dependent, pedestalizing, self-consciousness. The independence of the first is dependent on the dependence of the second. On the other hand, the pedestalizing consciousness chose to pedestalize. It was an independent decision. Thus, the dependent, pedestalizing consciousness is in truth independent.

Thus, the independence that the pedestalized self-consciousness has is a sham. Having realized this, it leaves the pedestalizing self-consciousness. The pedestalized self-consciousness, more often than not, initiates the break-up. It loses its attraction for the other. The pedestalizing self-consciousness is not aware of its own independence, and tries all that it can to prevent the other from leaving. Yet the initial attraction has been lost; there is very little chance that the pedestalizing self-consciousness will re-initiate that attraction if it engages in a chase. The pedestalizing self-consciousness has a better chance of re-initiating that initial attraction only if it recognizes its own independence and lets go. The sooner the better.

It's not pretty.

Let us not concern ourselves if the attraction is re-initiated. The same tensions will arise and again, one will pedestalize the other, and the other will leave the first. This can go on to infinity, yet is limited by the lifespans of each individual self-consciousness. The one independent self-consciousness, cancels its dependence on the other, and leaves. It again is independent some of the time, and its independence again sinks to being an arousing suspicion. The pedestalizing self-consciousness, once it has let go, cancels its dependence and regains its independence. Yet for the second, as well, its regained independence remains what it was before it entered that relationship - a rousing suspicion. Both self-consciousnesses have not become truly self-conscious, where the objective world and the living bodies in it, affirm that each self-consciousness is their own Absolute standard of truth.

This dynamic holds for any kind of romantic relationship. It also hold for any employment relationship between employee and employer. Either the employee is fired if he becomes too dependent on his employer, or he quits if he doesn't become dependent enough on his employer. What each of these types of relationship have in common is that the dominant member allows the submissive to live. The dominant member of the relationship is independent. Yet in having this kind of independence at, the dominant member is dependent on the dependence of the submissive member. This dependence continues so long as the submissive member remains being a living body in the objective living world of appearance. This dependence of the dominant on the submissive is present only if the submissive lives.

And the nature of self-consciousness demands the death of another.

The submissive member may become bitter, and resentful of the way its former relationship(s) turned out, or he may shrug it off and forget about it. In any case it has learned that its independence is not merely a phantasm, a figment of its imagination. The submissive partner independently chose to be dependent on the independent dominant partner. The nature of its arousing suspicion, of its own independence, is made clearer for the submissive, and just like sense-certainty learned from the pain of its dissatisfaction, so too does self-consciousness learn from the pain of its dissatisfaction. The submissive partner enters other relationships, and from in some of them learns to become the dominant partner. At some point, this self-consciousness chooses to end a relationship of his own accord, and the process involved in break-ups is again re-initiated. Self-consciousness, who began as the submissive, but became dominant, recognizes that the actualization of its independence, its self-certainty, demands the death of the other self-consciousness.

The dominant member in the first relationship we saw goes on to enter other relationships as well, resisting that frightening demand that the nature of the relationship between two self-consciousnesses imposes on him. Yet his dominant status was the first time only a product of chance. In other relationships, the dominant partner may just as well become submissive, and must go through the same learning process as the submissive member. Having experienced what it is like to be submissive, the originally dominant self-consciousness too learns that its independence is no mere phantasm, a figment of its imagination. The dominant self-consciousness enters new relationships with a re-enforced state of being dominant and remaining dominant in them. And again he leaves the relationship and again finds the same frightening demand. Its self-certainty demands the death of another self-consciousness.

The Struggle For Life and Death

Now, this dynamic plays out only in two self-consciousnesses. Yet, the presence of two self-consciousnesses, just as the presence of two reciprocally related forces, is the assertion that it is not alone, i.e. one self-consciousness. There are many self-consciousnesses. These self-consciousness inhabit bodies and form a tribe within a species with those self-consciousnesses that are in their immediate vicinity. This dynamic plays out in a tribe. While the form, which we have discovered here, is the same for every relationship of this kind, each individual relationship plays out in its own unique way. Each follows the blueprint, yet expresses it in its own unique way. The content of this dynamic, which is an expression of the form, is potentially infinite and variegated.

All end with the same conclusion. The self-certainty of self-consciousness demands the death of another self-consciousness. Self-consciousness cannot find reason to demand the death of his tribesmen, for he relates to his tribesman in such a way that he sees himself in another self-consciousness. We have explained this dynamic in detail above. Yet, not all members of the species belong to the same tribe, so there are self-consciousnesses that self-consciousness does not see as itself to the same degree of its tribesman. Self-consciousness, further, has the desire for the food, water, and women, of another tribe. It also desires that the self-consciousnesses, e.g. men, women, and children, of another tribe relinquish their independence on their own accord. Tribes inhabited by self-consciousnesses in living bodies make war among themselves. We will now explore this dynamic in more detail by examining how two self-consciousness, each wanting the death of the other, plays out.

Warfare: the stakes are higher than just physical resources.

Self-consciousness confronts the other self-consciousness. In being-for-self, the one recognizes the being-for-self in the other, in addition to recognizing its own being-for-self. In being-for-another, the one recognizes the being-for-another in internal world of the other, as well as itself relating to another in real space and time. Insofar as it is related to another, self-consciousness recognizes that it is related to itself internally; the converse is also true. Each self-consciousness, further, recognizes that its being-for-self and being-for-another are the same externally in real space and time.

Now, however, each self-consciousness desires the death of the other. Both self-consciousnesses have an arousing suspicion of their own independence, and each can only make this arousing suspicion a living reality, becoming continuously satisfied, only if it gets the other the affect the cancellation, the negation, of its independence. One self-consciousness needs the other to do this, and they both intend the other to do as it has planned. One self-consciousness wishes the death of the other self-consciousness. Yet, the other self-consciousness simultaneously wishes the death of the one self-consciousness. Thus, the one self-consciousness has death wished upon it. It wishes the death of the other, yet its death is also wished by the other. This is also true for the other.

In wishing the death of another, and in intending on acting upon this wish to make it into a reality, it puts the life of the other in danger. Yet the other, in wishing the death of the first self-consciousness, and also intending on acting upon this wish to make it into a reality, puts the life of the first in danger. The first self-consciousness puts the other in danger, yet is itself in danger. The same is true for the other. The first threatens and is threatened. The other, too, threatens and is threatened. In wishing the death of another self-consciousness, each self-consciousness must risk its own life.

This risk was not present in romantic and workplace relationships, so the outcome may be different from the first kind of relation, depending on the outcome of the struggle. There are only three possibilities. The struggle ensues. In the first possibility, both self-consciousnesses end up killing each other. The demand from both self-consciousnesses is satisfied simultaneously. Both self-consciousnesses lose their lives, die, and return to the oneness of infinity. Each defeated self-consciousness, now dead, must be born again, and again go through the whole process from the beginning to the point just before the fight ensued. The journey will be taken again, but will be faster than the first, since there are still living members of their species who reproduce and generate bodies for self-consciousnesses to inhabit. These newborn bodies have been produced from parent self-consciousnesses, who themselves inhabit bodies, that have undergone that process in their turn. These bodies make the movement from, sense-certainty to perception to understanding to self-consciousness as desire to pair-bonding self-consciousness, much faster. We are back to the start.

The struggle ensues. In the second possible outcome, both self-consciousnesses surrender. They value their life too much, and give up the prestige that comes with demonstrating their independence. Recall that self-consciousness wants to prove its independence by showing itself to be just as independent and self-subsistent as that objective living world of appearances, as well as the self-conscious living things that inhabit it, as well as their desire to satisfy their urges. In risking their lives, each self-consciousness shows that it is in truth independent even from the life process, its body, and the relation of self-consciousness to its body, its desire. In risking its life, self-consciousness proves to be self-subsistent. It is for itself the Absolute standard of the True. Both surrender, and thus fail to enact each other's wish for the death of the other self-consciousness; both fail to gain the coveted prize of independence. Each self-consciousness, must again wish the death of the other.

The struggle ensues. The third and final possible outcome is the result. One self-consciousness surrenders. The other is the victor. The struggle has a winner and a loser. The winner is cool, the loser is not. Both remain living, but experience of the struggle for life and death fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the winner and the loser. The relationship is no longer a reciprocal relationship where one consciousness is just like the other; the winner and loser are no longer equals.

When one bows, it is a gesture of their surrender; the Chinese and Japanese made the bow a courtesy. It isn't. When it first appeared, only the loser bowed.

During the struggle, one self-consciousness wished to remove itself from the threat of losing its life. In doing this, he valued his life as a living reality more than he valued making that arousing suspicion of his independence into reality. He had to compel the other self-consciousness to no longer wish death upon it. Therefore, self-consciousness no longer wished the death of the other. He had to stop the fight, otherwise, he would be killed, and he did not want to be killed. The fear of death engulfed the entirety of his being. This fear was painful, and he had to make that pain subside. He is cowardly. There was only one way he could stop the fight, and therefore, save his own life. He had to show his opponent that he surrendered by positioning his body in a submissive manner, or showing some other symbol that shows to the other his submission, like tapping out. That self-consciousness lost, and therefore, bowed to the winner. The loser remains alive, but has lost the prize of independence.

The other self-consciousness did not wish to remove itself from the threat of losing its own life. He valued his independence, the satisfaction of his desire to be his own Absolute standard of truth, more than he valued his own life. He was perfectly willing to continue to the death until one self-consciousness died. It did not matter whether it was the other self-consciousness, or himself. He intends to carry out his intention regardless of the consequences. Even though fear engulfs the entirety of his being, he ignores it, further demonstrating that he is an independent self-consciousness even over his own feelings. He is courageous. At some point, the other self-consciousness submits. This self-consciousness has become the winner. He has attained his prize of independence.

For reasons that shall become clear, the loser becomes bound to the life of the winner. The loser, in order to preserve his own life, recognizes the self-consciousness of the winner to be the one Absolute standard of truth. He must now ensure that the living body of the winner, as well as his own. The loser is now the bondsman. He is a slave, but I have not used the word "slave" to characterize him. The term "slave" implies permanent victimhood. The bondsman has chosen his fate by choosing life. Now the burden on maintaining life has doubled for the bondsman, and it was of his own doing. There is no such thing as true and unadulterated victimhood. The condition that every self-consciousness finds themselves in is of their own doing.

The winner still recognizes his own self-consciousness as being the one and only standard of Absolute truth for himself. The bondsman has taken it upon himself to ensure the maintenance of the winner's body. The winner, therefore, no longer has to concern himself with the drudgery of satisfying his desire for food and water.  The bondsman has surrendered his independence for the winner, and henceforth, we shall call the winner the lord. We will not use the word "master", because again, this arrangement is not permanent. Self-consciousness has gotten another self-consciousness to affect its own negation. Thus is can make its arousing suspicion of its own independence into a reality. Both the lord and the bondsman recognize the independence of the lord.

The two-fold object of self-consciousness, (i) self-consciousness itself, which for it is the supreme Absolute standard of truth, and (ii) the objective living world of appearances, which did not have the same prestige as self-consciousness, has been distributed among two self-consciousness. We saw a similar dynamic occur on the thing in perception, and force and law in the understanding. Extending this dynamic beyond just two self-consciousnesses, and distributing them, we see this play out among many self-consciousnesses. When tribes go to war, the surviving members of a winning army has the right to the resources, and the land, of the losing army. The winning army places the losers in bondage and can enslave the men who did not fight, as well,as the women and children. This is the nature and living reality of conquest. We can leave the specifics to another writer, for it is not our focus here.

That being said, when consider the two self-consciousnesses who have engaged in the struggle for life and death, the first sport, we see that the bondsman was bound and chained by his desire for life. Those chains, which at first only dwelled within his inner life, have become a living reality.

Lord and Bondsman

The lord has made his own independence a living reality. Before having engaged in the struggle, self-consciousness had only an arousing suspicion of its own independence. By recognizing that infinity was not only an object, but also subject, self-consciousness saw that it too was subject and object. Self-consciousness, therefore, took itself to be an object for itself; there was nothing in our initial assumptions that prevented self-consciousness from employing this move. Yet, the metamorphosis of consciousness to self-consciousness was, for the consciousness experiencing it, a vague undertaking. Consciousness did not develop the language, or the conceptual framework, that would have allowed it to express to itself using words like we can. For consciousness, these changes were subtle, and were reflected to the outside world by corresponding, and slight, changes in behaviour in how it expressed its body language.

(i) Lordship

For consciousness, the discovery of infinity, was only a vague and ambiguous shift from consciousness to self-consciousness. The objective living world of appearances remained, and it continues to be, as it has always been, independent from self-consciousness. The independence of the objective world asserted itself over self-consciousness through the desire of self-consciousness. Its desire to eat and drink, and fuck, was for self-consciousness a demonstration of its dependence on the living object world and the things in it. This dependence was further exasperated in the fact that self-consciousness had to labor to bring about its own satisfaction, i.e. to eat and drink and have sex. A free and independent being does not have to labor.

Having won the struggle of life and death, self-consciousness has become the lord, and retains for himself his independence. The lord is a self-consciousness that recognizes himself as his one and only absolute standard of truth. The lord has gotten the bondsman to affect the negation of his own independence, and has therefore attained the enjoyment of his own independence in its purity. Furthermore, the lord no longer has to labor in order to satisfy his desire to eat, drink, and has sex. The bondsman is now responsible for that labor. Having learned of the nature of cause and effect, and having learned that affecting the objective world in a particular way produces a particular outcome, the bondsman prepares the food for the lord, as well as bears his wine. The bondsman, further, surrenders his women to the lord; the lord has a harem of willing females ready, and willing, to be taken. Of course, his female bondsmen, in addition to satisfying the lord sexually, also prepare his food and drink. In some cases, if the lord is a homosexual, the bondsman must allow himself to be penetrated by the lord.

Further, the bondsman recognizes only the self-consciousness as the one and only standard of Absolute truth. The bondsman admires and wishes to be like the lord. Hero worship and celebrity worship share in this dynamic. The bondsman formally acts not of his own accord, but in the name of the lord; the bondsman is not an independent self-consciousness, but a dependent self-consciousness. In addition to administering to the needs of the lord, the bondsman administers to his own needs; the needs of the lord, however, take precedence over the needs of the bondsman. The dependence of the bondsman is in this way doubled.

The lord, on the other hand, no longer has to concern himself with feeding himself, or worry about whether he will get laid, or in extreme cases, wipe his butthole after taking a shit. The bondsman takes care of it. The lord not only has an arousing suspicion of his independence and self-subsistence, it is confirmed by the living bodies that inhabit the objective living world of appearances. The lord is a self-consciousness is a recognized self-consciousness, and the bondsman is recognizing. The relationship between lord and bonds is, therefore, one sided and unequal.

If we were to compare the relationship between lord and bondsman with the kind of relationship present in Spirit, a vague goal towards which self-consciousness is striving, and partly a motivator that compelled self-consciousness to risk its life in the struggle for life and death in the first place, we see that they do not match. In Spirit, two self-consciousnesses mutually recognize themselves and each other. Each sees the other as an independent other, yet each remains itself independent. The bondsman is not independent, he is dependent. The lord does not recognize the recognition of the bondsman. On the other side, the bondsman receives no recognition from the lord. If the relationship were to be equal, the lord would recognize the bondsman, and the bondsman would be recognized by the lord, and would further recognize the lord's recognition.

The terracotta army, which is life-sized, shows the extent to which the bondsman submits to the lord. The builders of the first Chinese emperor's tomb were also buried alive along with the emperor.

There is tension between what self-consciousness wanted out of the struggle, and he actually got. Further, just as we saw in the relationships duplicated entered - those kinds of relationships one can enter without having to risk their life - the lord is dependent on the bondsman's dependence in order to remain independent. The objective life circumstances of the lord shows both to himself and others that he is independent; beneath this independence is a hidden dependence on the bondsman. On the other side, the objective life circumstances of the bondsman shows both to himself and others that he is dependent. Yet, that dependence is a product of a the bondsman's independent choice to surrender in the struggle for life and death. Further, when the bondsman labors on parts of the objective world to prepare food, drink, and entertainment, for the lord, the bondsman is initiating causes again through independent choice, and is bringing about effects that are dependent on that choice.

Beneath the dependence of the bondsman hides an independence. We see an inversion occur in the relationship between lord and bondsman. The lord is supposed to be independent. Both he and the living objective world, as well as those living in it, affirms his independence. Yet he is revealed to be in truth dependent on the bondsman's dependence. The bondsman is supposed to be dependent on the lord. Both he and the living objective world, as well as those living in it, affirm his dependence. Yet he is revealed to be independent of the lord's independence. Each self-consciousness is the reciprocal of the other, having one kind of status in the living world of appearances, as well as for themselves, and quite another beyond the reach of their conscious and self-conscious awareness.

The hidden dependence of the lord will express itself in this manner: the lord must engage in continuous warfare in order to maintain his status. He must re-enter the life and death struggle again and again. At some point he will surrender, and the lord will become the bondsman for another lord. We see this in our own history most clearly in the feudal west and feudal japan, but this necessarily occurs in any period of history where there are lords and bondsmen. These battles continue until there is only one hegemonic lord, who has the status of being lord of lords. Every other lord beneath him is simultaneously bondsman, and while each lord does not need to ensure the survival of the lord of lords per se, each lord must swear fealty to him, and pledge to go to war with him if the need ever arises.

Human history has had at least one period where there ruled four lord of lords, simultaneously. One lord of lords, born from dynasties ranging from the Julio-Claudian dynasties to the Nerva-Antonine dynasties, ruled over a unified Roman Empire. Around the same time, another lord of lords, born  from the Han dynasty, ruled over the Chinese Empire. In India yet another lord of lords from the Kushan dynasty ruled the Kushan Empire, and still another lord of lords ruled over the Parthian Empire in the Middle East. It is at this time that the Christians claim their lord came to Earth. We shall explore this in the next article. The first century was monumental in the history of mankind.

In the string of these struggles for life and death, every lord will come to know his innate dependence as a living reality. Not even the lord of lords is exempt from learning of his innate dependence on his lord's and his bondsmans' dependence. Empires collapse, and with them, so does the independence of the lord of lords. Some retire to the country-side, returning to the life of a self-consciousness before having engaged in the struggle for life and death, others die in battles that determine the fate of their empire. Still, others die in battles not so important. Others are forced to become bondsmen for a new lord of lords, yet remain lords. Others are killed by their own bondsmen; yet others are killed by their captors while in bondage. Some die as lord of lords despite tasting defeat, refusing to surrender. Others die as lord of lords and their empires with them, never tasting defeat or bondage, never surrendering, without leaving heirs. Everyone of them return to infinity, and are born into new living bodies, living the life of a natural self-consciousnesses, seemingly never having risked his life in the struggle. Others are the offspring of bondsmen, or become bondsmen in their new lifetimes, and live the life of a bondsman. Whatever his fate, nobody around him can suspect that the self-consciousnesses that inhabit those bodies ever tasted the splendor of supreme self-certainty. Such is the fate of the lord, and of the lord of lords.

(ii) Fear

Bondage is bondage only in relation to lordship. We will know consider the state of bondage itself. No one can escape this state. It began with self-consciousness wishing to make its rousing suspicion that its own self-consciousness was for itself the one and only Absolute standard of truth. This suspicion was a residue product of the development that consciousness picked up on its journey to self-consciousness. Self-consciousness was situated in real space and time, the living objective world of appearances. This world stands opposed to and is independent from self-consciousness, yet it no longer had the status of being the Absolute standard of truth for self-consciousness, as were the conditioned immediate particular object of sense for sense-certainty, the conditioned mediated universal exclusive thing and its many diverse equally mediated universal properties for perception, or the unconditioned universal force, law, and inverted law for the understanding. Self-consciousness did not stand opposed to itself when it discovered that infinity, subject and object like itself, was the Absolute standard of truth.

Self-consciousness came to have two objects: (i) self-consciousness itself in itself, by itself, (ii) the objective living world of appearance, as it relates to itself and to self-consciousness through its living body. This objective world, eternal and self-subsistent, asserted its independence over self-consciousness whenever self-consciousness felt the pangs of desire. The tranquil state of inner harmony and equilibrium which self-consciousness calls "independence" was continually interrupted by the pain of having its physical body lose some of its physical material. Dissatisfaction arose, along with pain, and self-consciousness could only satisfy its desire by obtaining organic matter or inorganic matter to replace the material its body had lost. Since the object of its desire could only be objective, self-consciousness showed to itself its dependence on the objective living world, as well as the things in it. The objective living world asserted its own independence on self-consciousness with indifference and impunity, and self-consciousness' independence could be no more than an arousing suspicion, arising in brief moments of pleasure and satisfaction in the moments just after its desire was satisfied. This is the life of a natural self-consciousness.

Self-consciousness could only make the objective world affirm the arousing suspicion of its own independence if it got the objective world to negate its own independence. Self-consciousness found that only another self-consciousness was aware of itself enough to make that negation significant. Self-consciousness further came to find that it needed to demand the death of another self-consciousness and to risk its own life in a struggle for life and death, if it was ever to be elevate its suspicion of its independence from a sort of fantasy to reality, becoming truly self-certain. In the course of the struggle, self-consciousness risked its own life, as well as all the progress it had made to reach that point of self-consciousness, in order to ensure for itself independence. At some point, self-consciousness was consumed with dread, that is to say a fear of violent death.

This fear was not just an ordinary kind of fear. This fear was all-encompassing; it shook the very foundations of self-consciousness, right down to its very roots, our assumption that knowing is distinct from its object. Self-consciousness could not endure the pain that experiencing this fear caused it, or the pain of participating in the struggle for life and death; it wished to stop the pain, and return to its "tranquil" life, more than it wished for its own independence. Self-consciousness therefore surrendered and became the bondsman to the lord.

Fear.

The bondsman had its life, and along with it his dependence on the living objective world of appearances, but had lost his independence as a self-subsisting self-consciousness who was his own standard of Absolute truth. Self-consciousness had experienced a type of fear that encompassed every single fibre of his being; nothing fixed and stable in him remained; he quaked and trembled in the presence of the lord. No unity remained in the bondsman in the moment of fear. He experienced himself as a pure being-for-another, and had surrendered even his own being-for-self. The lord did not allow his fear to encompass him, so the bondsman had a deeper and more complete, sense of his being-for-another.

In addition to satisfying his own desires, which the bondsman was left with in having his life spared, he now had to satisfy the desire of the lord. He originally satisfied his desires by laboring on the living and non-living things of the objective world for himself, with the help of his knowledge of cause and effect which he picked up as understanding. Now some of his products of labor, he cannot consume for himself, they are for the lord. His labor is now work. The bondsman is not only a bondsman, but also a craftsman. He prepares food and drink for the lord. He uses his understanding to build tools for himself, and tools, weapons, and entertainment for the lord. He builds houses for himself, and palaces and monuments for the lord. He even gives up his own body for the satisfaction of the lord.

Work makes you aware of yourself.

The bondsman begins by recognizing only the independence of the lord. Only the self-consciousness of the lord has for the bondsman the status of being one Absolute standard of truth. The truth for self-consciousness is another self-consciousness. The bondsman does not recognize within his entire being any semblance of stability or fixity - no being-for-self whatsoever. Neither the bondsman, nor the lord, recognize any independence that abides in the activity of bondsman's self-consciousness. Only through work and labour does the bondsman come to re-claim an awareness of his own independence. Although the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, the bondsman will have to work and labour repeatedly in order to begin to get a sense of his own independence. The relationship of lord and bondsman is a prolonged on.

The lord only enjoys the fruit of the work and labor of the bondsman. The lord does not have to concern himself with the drudgery of work and labour; the product of the bondsmans' work and labour is there only for the enjoyment and satisfaction of the lord's desire. The lord has his desire continuously satisfied, and even though he feels dissatisfaction at times, that dissatisfaction is administered to as immediately as is possible. The lord is given access to his own independence like electric alternating current. Only the bondsman is concerned with the drudgery of work and labor. His reward is his life.

In other words, the bondsman cannot consume much of his own product. His desire to consume his product must be restrained and checked. No such restraint is necessary for the lord. The bondsman must learn to delay the gratification of his own desire. This restraint originates from the activity of a self-consciousness that is related to itself. Neuroscience states that one is only free to say no, to veto the pangs of desire. The bondsman expresses his own free will in its absolute completeness, and therefore his independence, only through delaying the gratification of his desire. In addition to this, the craftsman takes advantage of the principle of cause and effect, and learns to manipulate organic and inorganic matter, and combine them together in a certain way, with definable and repeatable steps, to get a finished product. For example, the swordsmith takes advantage of the principle of heat and crystallization, among others, to fashion a sword. He does not know the specifics of the principle. All he knows is that if he does this, he gets a specific kind of thing. Work and labour fashions and molds the object.

The finished product retains an enduring existence in the objective living world of appearances, and is as independent as any other thing in the living objective world. Yet, it does not come into appearance on its own; it comes into appearance due only to the work and labour of the craftsman. Through the fact that the abidance, and enduring self-subsistence, of the finished product is dependent on the independent will of the bondsman, the bondsman comes to have a sense and awareness of his own independence. Yet the bondsman works and labours on a collection of objects that belong to a self-subsistent, independent, and opposed objective living world of appearances. The bondsman works and labours on the very thing he at one point in his development he shook and quaked before. The thing he labors on is self-relatedness, being-for-self; being-for-self is the essence which the bondsman divested of himself, opposed to himself, and shook before.

A finished product.

The lord is a being who never divested himself of being-for-another. He remained self-related, and sure of himself, he was independent both for himself and for the bondsman. The self-consciousness of the lord, by being self-related, is a being-for-self for whom the bondsman quaked and trembled. The being-for-self of the lord, as well as the finished product, is for the bondsman an external and alien reality. In fearing the lord, the bondsman also fears the product. Yet, the product is dependent on the bondsman's capacity to restrain and check his desire to consume the product.

The bondsman recognizes both the independence of the product, its living object self-existence; the bondsman also recognizes the dependence of the product on the capacity of the bondsman to restrain himself. The bondsman at first is afraid that the product will punish him, as the lord does, for realizing its dependence on him. He is superstitious. However, the product does not punish him. When he thinks that it does, he mistakenly attributes the cause of the punishment he received from the product; he commits the fallacy of false cause. He comes to learn of his error, and corrects it. The product does not punish him, and he truly is an independent, self-subsisting self-consciousness.

By failing to punish him, the objective produce, which resides in the objective living world of appearances,  does not assert its independence over the bondsman - again with indifference and impunity. The sense of the bondsman's own abiding independence re-emerges, and it is not merely an arousing suspicion as it was for natural self-consciousness. The objective product, which is just as much an object entity as the totality of the objective living world of appearances, confirms the independence of the bondsman. His independence is a living reality. His fear of the object, of the materials that he brings together to fashion the finished product, of the product itself, subsides, and the bondsman gains mastery over it. The bondsman is a lord over himself and the product of his labour. He is self-certain and confident only through his work and labour.


(iii) The Formative Process of Self-Enfranchisement

The bondsman develops an awareness that his own self-consciousness is also his one Absolute standard of truth; he has within himself two self-consciousnesses that for him are the standard of Absolute truth. Within the mind of the bondsman, these two standards of Absolute enter into a relationship, similar to the kind of relationship we see in romantic relationships. Yet his fear of the lord does not subside, for the lord does not recognize the independence of the bondsman, for reasons which we have outlined above in more detail. If the bondsman so much as provide any inkling of independence, the lord punishes him. The self-consciousness of the lord remains the Absolute standard of truth and dominant over the more submissive Absolute standard further the bondsman.

The bondsman has developed, through his work and labour, a mind of his own which stands opposed and is independent from the self-consciousness of the lord. The lord has a self-consciousness that the bondsman recognizes as being the dominant Absolute standard of truth, in whose name his actions are directed. Yet, despite being dominant, the self-consciousness of the lord remains to be an alien externality. The bondsman does not merge with the lord. The self-consciousness of the bondsman, while it is submissive, is the bondsmans' own. This tension leads to situations where the bondsman ceases to recognize the dominance of the lord; this occurs when the lord slips, and shows signs that he is not as independent as he is taken to be. One way that this happens is that the bondsman realizes that the lord does not have the capacity to restrain himself. The bondsman further recognizes that the independence of the lord is dependent on the labor of the bondsman, and therefore the bondsman's capacity to restrain himself. Through no fault of the lord, except for the fact that he punishes the bondsman occasionally, and is cruel to him, the bondsman is prone to revolt.

The lord does not like when this happens.

Either the bondsman in this situation re-initiates the struggle for life and death. The lord cannot surrender without losing his status of lord. If he does surrender, he loses that status. If he does not surrender, he either is defeated, either by being killed or in his turn put into bondage. The new lord, being aware that he gained his position by developing a mind of his own through his work and labour, attempts to prevent the new bondsman from doing the same. When the new bondsman shows signs of independence, the new lord punishes him. This type of situation arises only if the revolting bondsman wins.

In the case that the revolting bondsman surrenders once again, he remains bondsman, and the lord remains lord. Having learned from the experience of the revolt of the bondsman, the lord searches for the ultimate cause of the revolt. He discovers that the revolt began due to the bondsman having developed a mind of his own through work and labor. Thus, if the bondsman once again shows signs of independence, the lord, in wishing to prevent another revolt from occurring, punishes the bondsman. He further learns to never show weakness to the bondsman, and develops the capacity to restrain himself in order to defend his status as lord. Temperance, along with courage becomes a virtue. In having learned temperance, the lord re-enforces his independence, and demonstrates the right of having his own self-consciousness of being the one and only Absolute standard of truth for both himself and the bondsman. Having quashed the revolt, however, the lord does not experience the absolute fear that made the bondsman the bondsman. The lord only won because he valued his own prestige and independence more than he valued his own life. 

In either case, a bondsman is punished for showing signs of independence. In only one case does the lord learn the temperance that belonged originally only to the bondsman. Yet, not having quaked before the being-for-self of the bondsman, the lord does not attain true wisdom, sophia, but only a practical kind of reason, phronesis. Still, this is enough for the lord to take up craftsmanship; he does this, however, voluntarily. Having not allowed the fear of violent death to consume him, the lord does not attain an awareness of himself as an independent self-subsistent self-consciousness to the same degree as the bondsman. The independence of the lord is not continuous as a function of time; it is rather a discontinuous, periodic, sinusoidal function of time that tends towards a constant, yet never reaches it.

As we know, at some point, the lord experiences bondage. He cannot escape the experience of bondage even if he attains the status of being lord of lords. So at some point, the lord too will gain an independence that is more constant, tranquil, and self-same than the one he currently possesses. The lord too, will attain wisdom, true absolute knowledge. The bondsman from the very first struggle for life and death has first dibs. It may be the case, that that very bondsman is writing this very article.

In any case, the bondsman, one way or another, learns that he cannot show signs of his own independence. The lord punishes him every time he demonstrates it, and the lord refers to the transgression as stubbornness. The bondsman is not independent. He is stubborn. And he is stubborn only because the lord says so. He not stubborn due to any good, well-reasoned and intricately detailed arguments on the part of the lord; the bondsman is stubborn only the lord says so. And on such an account, the lord punishes him. The social status of the lord is the only valid argument. The lord wins by the sheer force of ethos. The social status of an individual has a tremendous influence on how influential his way of looking at things is.

Despite not being, allowed to express his independence, either in his actions, nor in his feelings (your feelings make themselves known to others through your body language) the bondsman still recognizes himself as independent in the privacy of his own mind. The bondsman, therefore, finds his own independence only in the activity of thought. He further restrains himself, as he did by delaying the gratification of his desire, in the expression of feeling. The bondsman becomes a Stoic.