I have to admit I am not sure of what is the real meaning of this. But good, I could be far more than I am. This is the idea that I derived from the book ‘Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrick Nietzsche. On page 51 in the translated version by Walter Kaufmann, it is written “Every profound spirit needs a mask; even more, around every profound spirit a mask is growing continually, owing to the constantly false, namely shallow, interpretation of every word, every step, every sign of life he gives.” 

From my understanding, as the ongoing discussion here, this is all about communication and interpretation of the communication delivered. Whenever you open your mouth, when you put out something in any form, you are saying something to the world about who you are as opposed to what you are actually saying. This means that for you to be understood, people need to disconnect you from what you are saying or sharing. Thus, Nietzsche is known as the controversial Germany philosopher of his time; however, his work is still debatable in our time. I am saying this to make something clear ‘I am analyzing and commenting on what Nietzsche said but not Nietzsche himself’. 

As I said earlier, maybe there is something psychological onto this idea that the profound spirit needs a mask; a mask in your thinking, a mask in your communication and mask in your deeds… I connect this idea of having a layer to the communication, direct communication as opposed to indirect communication. To begin with I buy the idea of the indirect communication because it allows you to say more things before you call them in the names. This directly translate to something like ‘maybe you don’t have to say everything you are willing to communicate; let the other person do the work and this will benefit both of you’ to understand and to be understood. 

Furthermore, profound spirit as defined as ‘penetrating deeply into subjects or ideas’. It might be of importance to think that sometimes you don’t have to put words on every word you want to say. I am not trying to confuse you a lot now, but I think that saying something without saying it in its exact words have something deep about it. Suggestions popping in my mind now; you have the possibility to deny that you didn’t say it, you provide a broad range of thinking for the person receiving your communication and so on and so on … doesn’t it worth thinking about? By the way, I am not suggesting that indirect communication is the best ever; you might have to take into account who is receiving your communications and the situation. 

Cool, hmm; I think it’s time to conclude on this idea. As I am writing, a million ideas of points to raise are constantly entering my lobby of ideas. I would say that whatever communication you are trying to give, people will first of all think about who you are, what you are saying and connect both. Later on, the idea will be the intersection of the two whether you are indirectly or directly communicating with the person. But I think the idea is valid, ‘every profound spirit needs a mask, and even more, around every profound spirit a mask is constantly growing’. 

Author: Jean de Dieu N. (Jado)