Meanwhile we have the silly notions of our would-be philosophers:
>>A circle has no starting point, it is just a circle without start or end. You
>>prefer to set a begin without an end? In that case there is something like a
>>continuous time flow. The circle model implies something different, I
>>suppose, the circle as a whole: there is neither forward nor backward,
>>neither up nor down, its center is only an illusionory point, invisible, but
>>evidently the fix-point.>
>>-Litok
>In other words, that time moves and change occurs is itself merely a
>perspectival illusion! Very pre-Socratic.
Correction, Steve - very Asiatic. The circle as thought of State. The
circle as religious and pious thought of nature. The circle as the
Perfect.
Want something really pre-Socratic that is worth it? Where all
academicians think that Epicurus discovered the clinamen as escape from
the straight line, the problem was already posed much more deeply by
Anaxagoras - the nous as escape from the circle: how do vortices form?
Read Nietzsche. For Fritzi's sake, it is not about philosophy, but its
birth!
But on this you are correct, Steve, even though you come late to this
discovery which Lambda C has made its battlehorse a while back, and no
one else did for that matter - that Nietzsche was a great physicist.
But not you Steve, you should stick to philosophy, and forget about
science (when was the last time you addressed our exposition of a
physical theory of forces congruent with Nietzsche's will to power, or
our other exposition of the aether cosmology of the ER addressed to that
luminary of Rhodes?). Know why we say this? Because otherwise you run
the risk of us confusing you with Rhodes, as you both already share the
fashionable, but tiresomely old and fetishistic, interpretation of the
ER as the great wheel in the sky. Boy, this is a dull thought!
Isn't there one lousy soul on this list that can read something positive
and different in Nietzsche? Majorities are always reactionary, but must
they be this dull?
>Nietzsche was not aware of the Big Bang and Expanding/Contracting Universe
>theories, of course, but I also see nothing in these theories that disallows
>the notion of an eternal repetition, that is, an infinite progression of Big
>Bangs (Expansions, then Contractions),
Palindromic palingenesis. Nothing new, Steve, the same old tired lie
about Nietzsche, which you help perpetuate when you see nothing that
excludes this harlequin science from serious consideration, or worse
still, from some imaginary compatibility with Nietzsche. And it is you
who wants to be a lion, with these tame little metaphysical notions of
Big Bang and Big Crunch, the very worst that science has to offer, no
science at all but lousy METAPHYSICS?
>The paradox would have to do with time, it seems
>to me. Thus the eventual collapse of all matter back into the Mother of All
>Black Holes, back to the absolute zero-point of all space, would itself
>amount to the absolute cancellation of time. Time would have cancelled
>itself out! Thus, the repetition would be the exactly same event (Big Bang
>_redux_), again! Then again! Etc. But each time (!) the same identical event
>all over again, down to the smallest detail, because it _is_ the same event.
In one word, Steve, you have rediscovered the I-Ching hexagram for the
return, Fu, except that you make it Nietzsche's!!! Lies, lies, but in
good company. Your Nietzsche would have been, he too, a crass
plagiarizer. Lambda C has a hard time believing that you can go with
this sorry lot of the krittens galore straight into metaphysical idiocy
- the true and ONLY black hole of nature. Time canceling out? A
ludicrous notion, for the ER, if it serves for anything, underlines the
infinity of time, the indefiniteness of time, the eternity of time, not
some great circle of self-same identical repetition. You have had
enough time to convalesce. Repetition of the other is the name of the
selection, not fatigue of the same. Repetition is diachronicity of
cycles, but the other is becoming other as synchronicity of time,
singularity and oneness. So keep this thought clear in mind -
relativity and all the grandiose Big Banging farts preclude
simultaneity, and without synchronicity being actual, there are no
possible becomings, only illusions whether circular or not. Take away
synchronism and the relation between forces is meaningless, as
meaningless as is the notion that the speed of light c affects the
motion of particles, save photons. The being of becoming is to return,
because recurrence is diachronic time, contingent time, time of the
tonal; but being is nothing on its own, anymore than the Void exists.
Being is being of repetition, its contingency is that of becoming, the
selection of the other by virtue of simultaneity, its affirmation by
virtue of repetition. It is not becoming that is outside being, it is
being which is the outside, the extension, of becoming, its repetition
as selection of thought and selection of being. The being of recurrence
is not being same, but being other as recurrence of becoming.
With all those circles and your pseudo-criticism of Heidegger, and
dialectical at that!, we may end up believing you must be a closet
Hegelian. The circle as eternity of the concept...Caramba! By your
account Nietzsche was not a great physicist, but a shithead
metaphysician. This from the man who had the tertium quid of Aristotle
stuck in his throat!
Lambda C up in arms
PS - For one last laugh, maybe you could provide us with your notion of
chaos. Let us see whether you can be original when you are put to the
wall. Happy hardball. Ah, almost forgot, we throw in your way the same
challenge we once threw in Mr. Rhodes' way - be our guest and explain to
the little children that have come aboard why Lambda C is incorrect in
its contention - which it claims is at once scientific and philosophical
at that! - that the eternal recurrence is not repetition of the same,
nor circle of time, but recurrence of the other and open in time; in
short, escape from the circle.
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---