<< 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.<
Mmmh, it fits to some religions that the circle is a religious and pious
thought of nature, but e.g. it is not an explicit Christian thought (you know
they belief in an end of this time). The circle as perfect and state? Perhaps
there's something perfect and even state about the ER?
>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.
Nietzsche a great physicist? Surely not, he obviously was a dilletante in
physics.
But it is possible to assimilate modern results of physics into his
philosophy, similar e.g. the Christians have tried to do it since centuries,
although Jesus did not really care about physics.
> 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.
Mmmmh, the eternal recurrence is the escape from the circle, the recurrence
of the other and open in time? Nietzsche, and I'm quite sure about this,
didn't think his conception of ER much happy-making, but always stressed the
horribility of this thought. And I'm quite sure that he tried to escape this
thought, to overcome it. But if you state that the eternal return itself is
an escape from the circle, and you really state it above, I have to disagree
or at least I'm forced to maintain that your interpretation of ER missed
Nietzsche (what doesn't matter much, to exert one's own intellectual
faculties is, of course, no fault).
Concerning your 'style': What is getting on my nerves is your immitating
Nietzsche's style on a low level. Other people who are not of your opinion
you name 'would-be philosopers', 'dull', 'reactionary', thus I get the
impression 'the plagiarizer' at least in style is you. Nietzsche has some
excuses for his verbal invectives e.g. in his last conscious years he felt
that almost nobody was willing to listen to or show interest into his
philosophy (but on this mailing list are more than 300 subscribers, aren't
they?) - and many 'sins' of a _genius_ are forgiven. The passages in
Nietzsche's work I like most are these he urges his readers on opposing his
style.
-Litok
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---