The determination allowing the old man of the West to reach the truth of his own being is in great part his sexuate belonging. This frame or structure allows him to pass from a physical to a meta-physical level, from a sensitive to a spiritual level by assuming his desire for an other different from himself by nature—thus by taking on his own partiality and a double negative—which grants him the possibility of appearing and transforming himself in order to accomplish his own destiny. « The overman is the man who leads the essence of the traditional man to its truth and who assumes this truth » (op.cit., p. 55; p. 59), the one who is capable of assuming his destiny, of being faithful to his star without contenting himself with « the objective and static surface(s) and foreground facets of all things as alone valid and valuable » (op.cit., p. 61; p. 75). The overman is the one who questions « the predominance of public life » (op.cit., p. 63; p. 84) which conceals, under the cover of the neuter that lays down the law, « the tear of the tearing » and, thus, « does not let it reach man in his essence », notably by promising that « all men will soon enjoy an identical state of happiness and that equality of well-being will be secured for all » (op.cit., p. 62; p. 83).
The overman is the one who refuses his transformation into a robot and his reduction to an anyone whom nothing can still move, not even one’s own distress—henceforth become completely insensitive if not to the advertising slogans which arouse adrenaline enough so that one would try to get the upper hand over those who favour what is most apparent and sacrifice their flesh to conform with the artifices of a showing-off and the power of machinery. Those whose ambition is to produce human being itself in order to be done once and for all with the question of the origin of their being.
Such a gesture is not without similarities to the question of « Being » in western culture, in particular in Heidegger’s thought. Indeed, does this « Being »—in which our being has somehow or other its origin—not result from an assembling of beings carried out by man through the logos, thus through a fabricated device for always at work in the logos? Unless it corresponds to some impersonal and neuter divinity required by our traditional ontology? Being could also represent a reserve of matter, of energy and meaning kept on hold, waiting for a new epoch of history, when each one will take charge of and develop its own being as living and