Re: You asked for it!

Steven E. Callihan (callihan@callihan.seanet.com)
Mon, 11 Aug 1997 17:28:08 -0700 (PDT)

Eric, how you can read Leeson's quote as sanctioning "atomism" is beyond me.
I pretty much agreed with your initial point, although now I wonder. It
seems to me that the atom "inferred according to the logic of the
perspectivism of consciousness" (i.e., as an artifact of consciousness) is
not exactly disconnected from your "physics of neurophysiology." Or am I
missing something?

Steve C.

>Just a juxtaposition:
>
>Physicists believe in a "true world" in their own fashion: a firm
>systematization of atoms in necessary motion, the same for all beings - so
>for them the "apparent world" is reduced to the side of universal and
>universally necessary being which is accessible to every being in its own
>way (accessible and also already adapted - "made subjective"). But they are
>in error. The atom they posit is inferred according to the logic of the
>perspectivism of consciousness - and is therefore itself a subjective
>fiction. The world picture they sketch differs in no essential way from the
>subjective world picture: it is only construed with more extended senses,
>but with our senses nonetheless - And in any case they left something out .
>. .
>
> Friedrich Nietzsche, Will to Power (trans.: R. J. Hollingdale and Walter
>Kaufmann; ed.: Walter Kaufmann), New York: Vintage Books (1968), pp.
>339-340
>
>Forste wrote:
>
>>The eternal recurrence is a neurological phenomenon, and is
>>exquisitely bound up with physics, but it is the physics of
>>neurophysiology that we need to examine, not the physics of
>>Alpha and Omega.
>
>>Leeson makes a juxtaposition of my comment with a bit of text from
>a book that N himself did not choose to publish. I don't have my
>library handy, but I hope that when I refer to N's praise (in the
>works that he did choose to publish, and prepared for the press
>himself) of physiology and his call for philosophers to pay more
>attention to such things as the exquisite analytical power of the
>human sense of smell, people won't have much trouble finding these
>citations.
>
>I said:
> > exquisitely bound up with physics
>
>but "exquisitely bound up with physiology" would have worked
>just as well.
>
>Leeson's quote said:
> > a firm systematization of atoms in necessary motion
>
>but my text with which he juxtaposed this made no mention of atoms,
>since no such mention was needed.
>
>I might also juxtapose N's refutation of metaphysical idealism, in
>which he painted that quaint notion as the idea that the sense
>organs create themselves through their own action. That's in BEYOND
>GOOD AND EVIL. If Leeson can find any text of N's to juxtapose in
>which N (who was always suffering from splitting headaches) questions
>the existence of sense organs and nerves, I'd be interested to see
>it.
>
>I've disclaimed the relevance of discussions of atomism to the text
>I wrote. Nonetheless, I might point out that N wrote the text
>Leeson has chosen into one of his private notebooks several decades
>before the Perrin experiment, which tested and failed to break
>Einstein's atomistic explanation of the Brownian motion. I suspect
>that N might have phrased things rather differently after being
>informed of this experiment. Particularly if he were planning to
>publish.
>
>--
>Eric Watt Forste ++ arkuat@pobox.com ++ expectation foils perception -pcd
>
>
> --- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>

--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---