Man has a certain thing within him that shows to the observer, a symptom then, as a ‘will to power’. Many times, one encounters the man who is conceited and has a superiority complex by his whatever property, his wisdom, his patents, his theories that have achieved so much acclaim, his riches, his awards, his number of conquests (nation and woman, but a woman is a nation according to Kwegyir Aggrey, a statesman of pre-independence Ghana, so what am I saying?), many other things. It isn’t really a ‘pride of’ as much as a pure pride. The object of the pride is probably unimportant; and I say ‘probably’. Some say ‘when there weren’t these things to raise one’s shoulders about, people were more flat, not attempting to peak while killing others subterraneanly like trees engaged in survival warfare‘. But, there has always been something to be proud of: one self, that’s all. Being proud of oneself no matter what is contained in one and recognizing the richness not only in the person currently but also potentially. That translates into a certain sincere humility that knows only growth, a bringing forth.

The majority of things external which are blamed for certain traits in man are unfairly treated. The blame charges the man. From human influence to wealth, the blame is for the man. The issue proper is with his ascent beyond all others and seeking for dominion. The issue proper is with his ‘will to power‘. I’m aware that this word was used by Nietzsche in the 19th century but any similarity is purely coincidental. The term endears itself to me as it can encapsulate so much in three words by the simple meaning of an ‘ascent beyond all others‘. By virtue of a culture that sees external things as reason for self-apotheosis and braggadocio (that’s how I see it or how I call the self-apotheosis), such things easily come to fruition, things as finding some external reason for one’s conceit and ‘ascent beyond all others‘. But, this is in the present state of things, that is, the theory is gleaned from the present state. The history however is varied in my mind

1. There could have been some person who was stronger than others and was feared because of that or revered, then it became that not just when one has strength but any quality above others, he should be held and hold himself above all others. Mind that strength is just a placeholder for ‘any quality’ so that the example is easier to wrap around. So, this is an association between one quality and multiple others

(i) It could have been that this ‘better man‘ was taken by a group of people and agreed to be greater than others and deserving reverence so that he became, externally, more important than others. And, from there it became established that one should be more important than others, it became a law and had to be enforced. On the part of the man, the more important facet in this our Faberge egg, he came to see himself as better than others then it carried on as that for people of his quality.

(ii) maybe not he (maybe he) but another, saw this as reason for self-aggrandizement and took it up that he was better than others in his mind. After all, he has been part of the group that said ‘this person is more important’ so when his own is now reckoned or developed, he thinks naturally that he is ‘more important’. The man himself could do this if he has a different quality and associates that different one and the ‘importance of higher attribute’ per se. On the other hand, the first man could also do this and would differ from point (i) if he precedes the enforcement as law and simply gets self-important due to the reverence accorded him as well as the fear. So, this point (ii) differs from point (i) in that here, the man precedes social acceptance – reason for my emboldening ‘in his mind’

(iii) Also, it could have been multiple ‘better qualities’ from the outset for many deities to exist so that the inheritance is more direct or just one and then an association formed between the one ‘better’ and others (qualities) that were higher than others’ in the vein of ‘importance’. An association of one’s importance with another, something like a logical statement. If this is higher and higher is more important and that is higher, then, logically, that is also important.

2. There is also the case that it was there naturally.

(i) We all know the pride of the lion, it has been recognized by the human mind since I can’t remember. I see the same swagger even in the house cat. The pride is there in that small house cat, it just is proud no matter it’s size and that it is to be easily disposed, that it is lacking in some quality or another. In the company of humans who are so much bigger, see him blink and turn his head in the dismissive manner of some regent. That could have always been there and passed down to man.

(ii) That it all originated with man. Man is the proud one.

3. Another is that matter of logic and association. By these, such things as ‘because of’ and relations between seemingly unrelated things occurred. These, by my powers of perception, are limited to homo sapiens.

(i) It came to be that when there is a cat among men it is said ‘he thinks himself a Colossus’. All of a sudden a ‘because of’ is made when probably the cat’s attitude has no ‘because of’. Then, it becomes that ‘because of’ becomes a law for all, when you have something that is greater, one must think himself too, proud.

(ii) In 3(i) above, it could be the operation of the bearer himself – in whatever time, so present in men generally then – to think and thereby claim a ‘because of’ to his will to power which is actually non-specific and naturally present.

(iii) Or, without the middleman as in 3(i), when one has something greater, by logic, he too is greater since he owns it (ah, another episode of ownership) as was presented in the first point, 1(ii).

(iv) Also the case of association applies which was presented in 1 (iii).

4. There is also the matter of Devil or some other supernatural force, separate force at that

5. There is also the case of it all being there from the very beginning in all of man that power goes to the mightiest and that a stand-out is superiority. So, the entire thing operating as a system of sorts, an idea, and so fundamental to man in the way it is. This precludes, then, the singular man as singular originator

But, throughout the whole presentation, one sees:

1. A predisposition to ‘will to power’

2. Use of logic and association

3. The concept of ownership

The ‘pride’ that becomes a ‘because of’ is immediately precipitated as a discrete ‘pride’ altogether. The logic and association themselves came to be associated with the ‘pride’. They aren’t intrinsic to it. However, they are accessory, both for the person and for the observer.

The concept of ownership comes into play in just an association between ‘what one does or has’ and ‘what one is’. One is one, what one does is an expression, it represents one, but it shouldn’t rule one. And that can only happen that the immediately priorly stated will live harmoniously if one is fluid enough. None (particular thing) holds one enough to own one, or for one to think he owns it (especially, it alone) and then, one can be those his expressions.

In Jungian terms however, an association between ‘what is inside one’ and ‘what one has or does’ is a usual thing. What is already inside a person is projected on the external world. Even in non-Jungian terms, projection is a pretty usual thing. And then, it develops that emotive energy that attaches the person to the thing. But, the important distinction between the ‘one is’ and ‘inside one’ and ‘one has or does’ must be made. First, between ‘one has or does’ and ‘inside one’ then, between ‘inside one’ and ‘one is’. Human beings always trying to own things could find it’s birthplace here, but in the matter of ownership, other theories apply (I refuse to say ‘many theories’, my mind is tempting me). That is, apart from trying to keep it from other people, rise to some level of importance by means of it ‘being yours’, by enculturation, and others that aren’t crystallizing themselves in my mind right now, the treacherous bastards. Even if it’s not a projection, a within-to-without thing and rather a without-to-within thing, it doesn’t erase the matter of association. It can’t be ignored the matter of an interaction between the within and the without which brings about the ‘because of’ really.

By virtue of their ‘ownership’, they think that ‘it is them’ then they are more important than the other, that is, in conjunction with the other players in this overall relation, listed above.

Look to the man to your left, yes, the cripple. Watch closely as he rises from the seat, see his shoulders rise when the crutches go under there. Similarly, when your pride is upon something, that something is only a crutch, an accessory.