Probably he might say that “narcissism”, as it is currently understood in popular culture, is an illusion, brought on by a state of paranoia, consequent on the de-centralization of power.

In fact, any sudden shifts in social structure can bring about mass states of madness. And we have had precisely a very big shift recently, due to the removal of many of the legitimizing structures of power from the concrete world to a situation where we are experiencing much of our reality online.

He might say that institutional power, as we used to know it, only a few decades ago, now appears much more scattered. Along with this, many aspects of it have faced de-legitimation. In particular, authoritarian structures, such as universities, police and health care systems, have been undermined by a new surge of popular culture, which ascribes very different meanings to them.

Now, due to the fact that people no longer have the same sense of hierarchical power structures to attack, their attention moves to the level of the “community”, and there is now a heightened vigilance against “selfish people”, whom it is deemed may have the viral infection of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Moral terror reigns in many aspects of popular culture, as systems representing “elitism” and superior knowledge are pulled down and overturned. The Arts, in particular, are taking a severe hit. The revolution that would overturn “narcissism”: has now installed Jordan Peterson as the “people’s legitimate philosopher”, whilst attacking Foucault as the imposter or the phony. The social revolution will no doubt find more heads to make roll.

In the end, the hysteria regarding “narcissism” will burn itself out, as people learn to adapt to a much flatter social system, where power potentially could be anywhere.

Well being merely “offended” by aggression may not be an appropriate reaction. Certainly it is impossible to know, without the given context whether being offended could be anything like an “infantile reaction”.

More specifically, it is not likely to be so, since infants are not “offended” by anything: they merely react.

In truth, aggression serves a function in social contexts, so it is important to know the context and what function the aggression was intended to serve in this, or any, particular instance. Having made an accurate analysis of what the other party was trying to achieve by their aggression, we can then respond to it effectively. This is not something infants can do.

It is important to realize that merely “being offended” is not enough. One may need to take defensive action, such as putting oneself outside the range of the aggressive person. Alternatively, one may need to set up a game plan for the longer term, if it is not strategically possible to get away from the situation where aggression is provoked.

What one should not do, however, is acquiesce to the therapeutic paradigm that tries to do away with negative emotions (which also includes the recognition of others’ negative emotions.) There is a word for such a reduction of one’s sensibilities: castration.

I never thought I was superlatively intellectually gifted, although all the signs were there that I was at least in the top 5 to 10 percent.

My approach on discovering that my limitations are much greater than I’d like them to be is to take an approach of quarrying for information.

It take a significantly longer time, admittedly, and a reduction of sphere of focus to one major area. However, I do believe that finally I have cracked the structural; code that underlies Nietzsche's philosophy and gives it both its shape and coherence.

Some of my approaches in refining understanding, using a more oblique than direct approach have been

• familiarizing myself with the pedagogic tone and common themes of the 19th Century
• understanding the historical basis for social and political hierarchies
• paying attention to what others, for example Lou Salome has said about her close contact, Nietzsche, and thus looking out for a tendency toward subtlety in speech and tone.
• Paying attention to tone in terms of what Nietzsche himself thought he was doing, which was a kind of dancing shuffle, in his manner of communication — three steps forward, two steps back, for example.
• Gaining familiarity with the implicit content of his writing with the aid of models from other writers. For example, the concept from Georges Bataille (which he had himself constructed as an interpretation of Nietzsche) involves comparing two social modalities — the homogeneous and the heterogenous. That which is homogeneous has a common value, like a coin, and can be exchanged and measured by a common social value. That which is heterogeneous has no social equivalent by which it may be exchanged or measured, and is thus outside of the system of social legitimation.
• Listening very carefully indeed to what most people do not “get” about Nietzsche’s writing, and trying to pick up the reasons why this is, based on what I know about those who DO grasp him, those who PARTIALLY grasp him, and those who DO NOT. (My conclusion is that those who experience life in a homogeneous way — where one type of thing is roughly equivalent to another of its type — will not understand Nietzsche at all. By contrast, those who have a heterogenous manner of looking at life — which is to say, who view themselves, and even their situations as a novel experience — will understand him very well.
• In my view, it is important not to rely on secondary sources (other people’s interpretations) of a primary text, if one wants to make interesting or exciting progress. Secondary sources are for second-rate thinkers. Being slower in drawing an analysis, but fiercely persistent is that way forward.
• Finally — persistence, come hell or high water. And being willing to revise one’s earlier errors.

According to Nietzsche, the development of logic followed a pattern of learning to equate different things, that were nonetheless similar, as if they were the same.

It was very useful to do this, which is why the principles of knowledge, which are based in logic, give humans many practical advantages in terms of living their lives.

On the other hand, instinctive (operating below the level of consciousness of in the mind of the individual), artistic, and political principles differ from this. These embrace the events of experience as though they were always “once off” possibilities.

In this sense, logic is for those who plod more slowly, who need a world view that is stable and calculable.

There is another level of things, however, which is to see the unique possibilities in every situation, and to engage with them uniquely and to the uttermost.