Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

No, what I mean is this. In my second-last post, I basically argued that the overman necessitates the idea of the eternal recurrence (inasmuch as he is defined as the man who affirms that idea). But that was never your question. Your question was what the idea of the recurrence necessitated, if anything; and without-music’s answer was: “the overman”. That the overman necessitates the idea of the recurrence does not mean that the converse is also true. So my referring you to BGE 56 did not really support without-music’s answer.

But that was only the first step. If the overman is the man who affirms the recurrence, this places him, as you say, at the top of those who endure it. Affirmation is actually the superlative of endurance. So if the (en)joy(ment) mentioned in WP 1059 and 1060 would, after the initial selection, be selected further over time, at some point this would result in the overman.

But I did not ask what the idea of the recurrence necessitates; I asked what is the merit of this idea. That is the point where without-music answered: the overman.

I do not think that you and he are disagreeing.

I will quote from these passages, they contain the most enlightened thoughts in a nutshell.

“To endure the idea of the recurrence one needs: freedom from morality: new means against the fact of pain (pain conceived as a tool, as the father of pleasure; there is no cumulative consciousness of displeasure): the enjoyment of all kinds of uncertainty, experimentalism, as a counterweight to this extreme fatalism; abolition of the concept of necessity: abolition of the “will”; abolition of the concept of “knowledge-in-itself”_
Greatest elevation of the consciousness of strength in man, as he creates the overman.” [size=85][WP 1060][/size]

No longer will to preservation but to power; no longer the humble expression, “everything is merely subjective,” but “it is also our work! - Let us be proud if it!”” [size=85][WP 1059][/size]

Striking that Nietzsche arrives at the abolition of the concept “will”. We must realize that “will to power” is something fundamentally different from the traditional will-concept.

Fixed Cross

Compared to the infinite any finite thing is virtually infinitesimal, we are largely finite.

What can we imagine apart from nature? How then can one person see a non nature? Hence we are all seeing the same thing just from differing perspectives.

To assume what many philosophers seam to think is > perspective based < reality, we need to;

  1. Assume the brain cannot read/understand anything beyond the subject.
  2. That mind is something other than the brain, and cannot read the brain beyond the subject.
  3. Or that the brain does not exist. …or mind is the only thing actually thinking.
  4. That there are no derivatives between subjects and objects.

…how then can we think anything at all, what can our thoughts be based upon. if illusion how can we correlate* them?

*requires derivatives.

Okay, maybe I should have said “facilitates”. Surely something can only have merit if it facilitates or necessitates something good?

Neither do I.

Indeed: see for instance WP 668 and 692.

Sauwwlios: Thank you for making the inverse connection. I’ve found it rather helpful in my own understanding of the recurrence and its monumental importance in Nietzsche’s corpus. More later.

This is, of course, the perfect way to go about rebutting The Joker’s take on the Return, his nihilism. To affirm the Return is not to affirm the absolute meaninglessness of existence. Again, on the contrary.

I could not find this thread back - only after 5 minutes it occurred to me that it was in the natural sciences section! Lol.

Yes, facilitates is better, but that still does not say that what is facilitated is a merit. It could also me a detriment.

Thanks again for a good reference. The logic seems so simple: we must propose an object to the will to postulate a will in the first place. What may we propose in general? Power.

It first of all means we have to accept them, as they can’t be seen as transient. It absolutizes the moment.

The Overman then as a person who exists absolutely in each moment - who is not capable of doubt in the sense that Socrates and Christianity substantiated as basically the western conscience.

Christianity is the method of non action.
This eventually led to such deep contemplation and suffering that it caused Nietzsche, who saw the limit of that approach and in that limit found a ground to a course of action.

He could not take that course because of historical and evolutionary reasons, so he took the course of asking people in the future to take it for him. And here we are.

Where the fuck are you anyway WM. I hope you’ve embarked on a successful path of writing. Do publish your works and notify us humble ones here.

Yes, of course. When our valuation increases, we are entirely changed because of it.

It correspondingly appears to be that case that the mindstate of Interest is the expression of the most complete progressive mobilization of monoamines, serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline. A maximized valuation of each moment would thus indeed literally mean optimized patterns of brain chemistry.

I wonder if we need to periodically run out of, or slack in distributing these monoamines. It seems there really isn’t much reason, teleologically, to have them diminish - is this simply a matter of regeneration? Perhaps simply a matter of nature having no real interest in herself, and leaving herself unfinished -

An opportunity she herself made use of in allowing the emerging of self awareness, which led to humanity, which can be summarized as the will to perfection, so far most comprehensively expressed through symbolic dichotomies like Apollo and Dionysos, around which great orderly structures emerge.

Einsteins frustration was simply this humanity, the will to unity, perfect and complete the world, the burden nature has placed on herself in our form - the burden being this will, not the actual task, as this task may be impossible except through allowing disunity as the foundation of unity, rather than an error that needs to be ironed out.

Cyclical time theory is a non-sensical concept. So is the concept of Eternal Return. It’s based on the non-sensical concept that is infinity.

Finitude in and on itself is conceivable (unlike infinitude which is non-sense.)
But finite universe isn’t because the concept of universe itself is non-sensical.
Everything that makes sense has boundaries i.e. it’s finite.
The concept of universe has no boundaries thus it’s non-sensical.
It makes more sense to say that the universe is infinite than to say that it is finite but this is only because saying the universe is infinite aligns with the fact that the concept is boundless.

Really? Try to conceive something finite. Picture it in your mind. Now tell me: what do you see around it?

For example, I see latters in your post. These are bounded by white space. And white space itself is bounded by other things. And so on.
I don’t know about you but I think that everything has a beginning and an end.
In other words, everything is transient.
Everything comes and everything goes.

What you’re looking for is absolute or infinite boundary.
That’s not finitude.
That’s infinitude masquerading as finitude.

Sure, the letters in my post are bounded by white (or light blue) space, and that space is bounded by other things, and so on. Those things are all finite. But is there a finite number of things? If so, how do you conceive of the outermost things? Are they bounded by “nothing” on one side?

Also, the notion of a finite amount of things in existence relies on the assumption that there is even one discrete “thing” to begin with. Which isn’t the case.

All that is discrete is principle. Whether we call it WtP or Self-valuing or RTA or something else that makes sense, it always speaks of the “being-ness” of being, that about it which is consistent.

In as far as we can speak of discrete, separate objects of existence, we are simply speaking of our own minds proclivity to separate itself from itself.

In a set, there can be a finite amount of objects in that set. But existence is not a set, it is a phenomenon.

::

Rephrasing.

Infinity/finity is a concept based on the idea of discrete quantities of existence-pure. Objects.
In reality, all such objects are appearances, standing out from a deep process that we can not see, the subatomic world, which is interconnected in ways we can not compute yet.

We can not compute them because we make assumptions that aren’t warranted.

Not all "we"s are the same.

James is exempt from the superstitious assumptions inherent in men’s “laws of thought”, even though he basically believes in ghosts… What’s keeping your reply to my refrigerator post, James?

The only kind of “ghostliness” in contemporary physics is that of so-called “dark matter”. There is however no evidence that it interacts with the rest (as James’ ghosts do) or even with itself. It truly seems to be stuff that doesn’t self-value, or many kinds of stuff which are all incompatible with the self-valuing of other things.

I basically agree with what you just said, Fixed.

Seriously?

:icon-rolleyes:

I have referenced two kinds of “ghosts”. To which are you referring?
And exactly what gives you the impression that you have the slightest notion of what dark matter is about? :confused:

As to your “refrigerator comment”, my effort was merely to reveal that your point was absurd. With your help, that was accomplished. There was no more need to reply.

The kind that can observe things without having the observation affect them.

N. Tyson.

You think refrigerators do fit into our eyes?? :o

Here’s another example which renders your point absurd. Suppose we want to know what a refrigerator looks like in the dark. In order to see what it looks like, we have to cast light on it (if only infrared light; but then we still can’t see it with the naked eye). But if we cast light on it, it’s no longer in the dark! So we cannot know what a refrigerator looks like in the dark. Likewise, we cannot know what an as-yet-unobserved quantum state is like.

I have never referred to that as being a ghost, so that nomenclature attempt is upon you.

Oh gyahd… :icon-rolleyes:
Pray that no one hijacks or scrambles your coding.

What I think, since you asked, is that you know too little of that subject to intelligently discuss it. You have your opinions … fine. Keep them. Perhaps attempt debate with someone else.

And btw, even in Jacob’s self-valuing (with which I am not entirely incompatible), there is no reverse causation involved.

Still, you claim that it’s possible to observe things without having the observation affect them. I call that ghostly because a ghost, in much of popular culture, can move through things and yet observe them.

How’s your standing within the scientific community, James?

As I already told you in that other thread, “I never claimed that what happens to the light after it leaves the object changes the object.” (http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2673851#p2673851)

Jim, can you please address Sauwelios’ points? I would like to see some intelligence from your side.
I know you have it. Others don’t think so but I know you do.

Dont fucking leave me hanging Jimbo.